Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FELTHAM STATION AREA REDEVELOPMENT (LONGFORD RIVER) BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

HONG KONG AND CHINA GAS COMPANY PLC BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL (By Order)

Order for Second reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 24 June.

BILL PRESENTED

WOOLWORTHS (ABERDEEN DEVELOPMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Woolworths (Aberdeen Development): And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 29 June and to be printed. [Bill 145.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Economic Recovery

Mr. Knox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there have been any further signs that the economy is recovering from the recession.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Activity is higher than in the first half of last year. Industrial profits are beginning to recover. Productivity—output per head—in manufacturing has risen 12 per cent. from the fourth quarter of 1980. The latest CBI economic situation report shows the recovery continuing into 1983. Interest rates have continued the welcome decline seen earlier in the year, and inflation is coming down faster than expected, providing the best possible basis for achieving, and sustaining, continued recovery.

Mr. Knox: Is my right hon. and learned Friend sure that the economy is recovering, rather than just bobbing along the bottom?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am confident of that. In addition to the facts that I have just recited to the House, all the forecasts—not just those from my Department—confirm that proposition.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: In the pursuit of economic recovery, when does the Chancellor expect to enable efficient British exporters to get back to the level of cost-competitiveness that they enjoyed when he took office?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Progress in that direction depends entirely upon the success achieved in reducing unit labour costs and improving competitiveness in British industry. The experience of the previous Government showed that, despite a substantial decline in the value of the pound, that course contributed only insignificantly to the restoration of competitiveness.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if National Health Service employees receive a pay increase of 12 per cent., or anything rear that, it will lead to the return of inflation, far greater unemployment, and reduce prospects for economic growth?

Mr. Hoyle: Rubbish.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is important throughout the economy to continue the progressive reduction in the rate of increase of costs, whether expressed in terms of prices or pay awards.

Mr. Shore: Is the Chancellor aware that many people in the country and in the House will have been astonished by his reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox)? The Chancellor cited the latest CBI monthly report. Does he agree that the key phrase is that the economy "remains in the doldrums"? That is how it was described in the newspapers at the time. Is the Chancellor aware that the May issue of the index of industrial production showed that production in the economy was ½ per cent. down on the previous quarter? Does the Chancellor agree that this recovery resembles the Scarlet Pimpernel—it is oglimpsed rather than seen and is largely a work of fiction?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can imagine that it is a work of fiction which the right hon. Gentleman might like to write. The reality is that the gross domestic product is up significantly since last spring. Production has risen in the last three months by 1 per cent. Productivity and profits have improved on the lines that I have indicated. There are many indicators of steady but sustainable economic growth. I should like to enlist the support of the right hon. Gentleman in seeking to persuade all those concerned with pay bargaining to understand the importance of a continued reduction in unit labour costs if we are to continue progress in that direction.

Public Sector Borrowing Requirement

Mr. Latham: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the level of the public sector borrowing requirement.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Leon Brittan): Latest estimates suggest that the PSBR outturn for 1981–82 was £8·9 billion. The Budget forecast for 1982–83 was £9·5 billion. I have no reason to change that forecast.

Mr. Latham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that Treasury predictions on the future level of the PSBR have not always rivalled those of horse racing tipsters for accuracy? Will he carefully bear that in mind before taking any deflationary action, through tax increases, to pay for the Falklands conflict?

Mr. Brittan: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's knowledge of the accuracy of racing tipsters is much greater than mine. I shall certainly bear in mind the limitations in Treasury forecasts when considering any further action.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Putting forecasts to one side, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the latest OECD figures show that our public sector borrowing requirement as a percentage of GNP is about half the equivalent for Germany and barely two-thirds that of Japan—two successful economies? Does that not tend to suggest that we have a far too restrictive financial position?

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that the OECD figures lead to that conclusion. The contrast that I draw is with France. I draw a sharp contrast between the success that we are having emerging from recession compared with the difficulties that France, with a different economic policy which is closer to that supported by Labour Members, now seems to be experiencing.

Mr. Alan Clark: The term PSBR is often used as a synonym and a cover title for public expenditure generally. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept the suggestion that if he or any people for whom he is responsible—we can compare the various papers on this subject with which the House is sometimes edified—think that they can set their sights on or restrict defence spending to repair defects that may have been thrown up in purchasing and procurement over the last few years, the party, the Services and the public would not accept it?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend is tilting at a windmill that I cannot see.

Northern Region

Mr. Foster: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will examine the possibility of co-ordinating more effectively public expenditure in the North of England so as to stimulate an early recovery of the economy in the Northern region.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. John Wakeham): Levels of public expenditure are primarily determined on the basis of functional expenditure programmes rather than by territorial areas, but, where appropriate, the needs of areas such as the North of England, which has been experiencing particular difficulties, are taken into account.

Mr. Foster: Is not the loss of output and the growth of unemployment in the Northern region now so fundamental that a completely different approach is required, such as a development plan for growth? Does the Minister accept that, far from crowding out private investment, there is a complementarity between public and private sector investment? Should this not be co-ordinated in such a fashion that there would be an inducement for private investment, which is something that even this Government do in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not persuaded that the best interests of the North would be served by the creation of another agency. The powers in respect of Scotland and Wales, for example, are held through different agencies in the North. To add such an agency to the North would provide no extra power, merely an increase in bureaucracy.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Has my hon. Friend heard the news that of all the towns in Great Britain that provide good value for money, the town that provides the best value for money is the holiday town of Morecambe? Does he agree that were the Government to carry out proposals of the kind suggested by Members from the Northern region for special arrangements for the area, much resentment would be entertained by people who live on the fringes of that area?

Mr. Wakeham: I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting up early in the morning to listen to the radio after two late nights in the House and taking this opportunity of advertising his constituency, which I am sure industrialists and those thinking of setting up business will bear in mind. My hon. Friend points to the real difficulty of areas that lie just outside any special development area.

Mr. Dormand: Will the Minister assess the response to the Chancellor's welcome initiative of last year, when financial incentives were provided from the scheme for the conversion of oil-fired boilers to coal? Has not the take-up of that scheme been much less than was expected? Will the Chancellor provide more money and widen the scope of the scheme? I assure the Minister that if that were done the effect on the coal industry in the North of England would be quite considerable.

Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. and learned Friend widened the scope in the last Budget, and one of the reasons was that the take-up had not been as large as he had anticipated. We shall bear this whole question in mind, because we are anxious that the scheme should be used as much as possible.

Mr. Horam: Is it not time that there was at least a mechanism in the Treasury for co-ordinating public expenditure, not only functionally, but by regions? At present there is no such mechanism, which is why the Minister cannot give a proper answer to the two points made from the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Wakeham: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman believes that an additional agency—

Mr. Horam: Not an additional agency.

Mr. Wakeham: —will assist in these matters. The present bureaucracy is quite sufficient, and we would sooner see it reduced than increased.

Inflation

Mr. Greenway: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the prospects for the level of inflation at the end of the year.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest assessment of prospects for the rate of inflation by the end of 1982.

Mr. Proctor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress being made towards reducing the rate of inflation.

Mr. Adley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the trend of inflation.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Inflation is now in single figures. At the time of the Budget we forecast a year-on-year rate of 9 per cent. by the end of this year and 7½ per cent. by the middle of next, but we could well make rather faster progress than that.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first the four hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government are on target for a lower average rate of inflation than they inherited and that they are the first Government in 30 years to achieve that? Will he also confirm that the cost of the Falklands operation will not be allowed to increase inflationary pressures in the economy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The answer to my hon. Friend's second question is "Yes", and there are later questions on the Order Paper dealing with that subject.
The average level of inflation under this Government will be lower than that under their predecessors, and that will be the first time that that has happened since the war.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is it not true that for the first time for many years Britain's inflation rate is lower than those of many of our competitors? Does my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that inflation must go even lower if we are to become even more competitive and to provide the best climate for investment, both of which are needed to secure more jobs? What are the prospects for inflation continuing to fall next year?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The forecast that we have given indicates the prospect of a lower level of inflation next year. As I have indicated, the forecast points to 7½ per cent. by next spring. However, beyond that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that although we have improved our performance, so that it is now better than that of many of our international competitors, we must go on making further substantial progress if, for example, we are to begin to match the levels of inflation achieved in Germany and Japan.

Mr. Proctor: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the Government's achievement in reducing inflation to single figures. What further proposals does he have in mind to reduce public expenditure still further so that the rate of inflation can fall even more?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is entirely right to point to the importance of continued control of public borrowing and public expenditure if we are to achieve further success in reducing inflation and, equally important, interest rates alongside that.

Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that it is clear from the Government's achievement—

Mr. Cryer: These questions are all planted.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious allegation. I therefore restrict myself to asking my right hon. and learned Friend whether he accepts that my question was not planted? Is he able to draw some

satisfaction from the fact that four of his hon. Friends voluntarily and separately chose to raise the subject of inflation at this time?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I draw much comfort from the fact that our success has been acclaimed with such uniform enthusiasm by my hon. Friends. I notice the reluctance of Opposition parties to table questions on this matter.

Mr. Jay: Is the Chancellor's message to the nation that, owing to the huge success of the Tory policies, we now have 3 million unemployed?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My message to the nation is precisely that which is encapsulated in every communiqué of every international gathering of recent months, and most recently in the communiqué of the Paris summit, to the effect that growth and employment must be increased. This will be attained on a durable basis only if we are successful in our continuing fight against inflation. I note, as the House should note, the extent to which policies that have been adopted in France are now being brought more closely into line with ours to achieve that objective.

Mr. Hoyle: Is not the truth of the real world, away from the Treasury mandarins, that redundancies are still increasing? Has tie Chancellor seen the announcements by BP and ICI this morning? All that is on account of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's disastrous economic policy. Is not the best service that he can do for the nation to resign forthwith?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The unreality of the world inhabited by the hon. Gentleman is demonstrated by the absurdity of his last proposition. He will find that in the real world every other country is facing comparable rises in unemployment—

Mr. Austin Mitchell: No.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: —and recognises the need to maintain effective policies to fight inflation. The House must realise that the unemployment that we face today is not the price that we pay for fighting inflation now, but the price that we pay for having put off the fight against inflation for so long in the past.

Mr. Higgins: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed the tendency of those in the Labour Party to compare the rate of inflation now with that which existed when we came into office, while ignoring the fact that when we came into office the rate of inflation was accelerating, whereas it is now declining? Does he agree that the main reason for that change is the difference in attitude on public sector pay? Is it not essential for us to resist inflationary pay claims in both the public and private sectors if we are further to reduce the rate of inflation?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend is correct. Over the past year, the year-on-year rate of inflation fell from 12 per cent. in April 1981 to 9·4 per cent. in April this year. Over the last year of the Labour Government, the year-on-year rate of inflation increased from 7·7 per cent. in May 1978 to 10·3 per cent. in May 1979, and was going up.
My right hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the continued importance of securing further reductions in the rate of increase of prices and pay costs, and a progressive reduction of pay settlements, if we are to


continue the success against inflation, while also beginning to secure greater success against unemployment.

Mr. Straw: Is the Chancellor aware that this measly performance of bringing inflation down to the level that the Government inherited from the Labour Government three years ago has been achieved at the cost of 3 million and more jobless and that there is no prospect of unemployment decreasing in the next year, even if inflation decreases a little more? Has the Chancellor forgotten the major pre-election interview that he gave to The Times and the promise that he would bring inflation down
to between 2 or 3 per cent. in about three years' time",
which was last year? Who does he blame for that failure—himself, his colleagues or the country?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the fact that two months after we were elected into office there was a second massive oil price explosion, taking the price of oil to 26 times what it had been in 1970. He may also have overlooked the fact that we inherited from his Government a rapidly accelerating rate of inflation, sustained by the explosive collapse of the Labour Party's pay policy.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Ron Brown: asked the Chancellor if he is yet in a position to announce whether supplementary provision will need to be made to meet the cost of the Falkland Islands operations.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the national financial means by which he proposes to finance any additional public expenditure resulting from the Falkland Islands expedition.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jock Bruce-Gardyne): It is not yet possible to say what the costs of the Falklands operation will be and therefore to what extent supplementary provision may be necessary. The costs will be met in ways consistent wth the Government's economic strategy.

Mr. Brown: Is it not clear that this £1 billion adventure will have to be paid for sooner or later? Will it, as usual, be the working people of the country who will pay for it, or will the Government surcharge those companies who were selling arms to both sides? I pointed out what those companies were doing. If there is any morality in this country, a surcharge should be applied.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary has made clear, it is the intention and the determination of the Government that the Falkland Islands campaign will be met in ways that are wholly consistent with the overall economic counter-inflation policies of the Government.

Dr. Marshall: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of us refuse to believe that the Government have not yet got the best estimate of the full cost to United Kingdom funds of the operation in the Falklands? If the Contingency Reserve, which is a reserve almost entirely used up each year, is to be used to finance part of this operation, how will other contingencies be met?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman's recollections of last year are not entirely correct. The Contingency Fund was only half used last year. We are at an early stage of the current financial year. The Contingency Reserve is available to meet unexpected charges that occur during the year. That does not mean that that is necessarily or exclusively the answer to the question of the cost of the Falklands' campaign. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman appears to believe, it is not possible to give the House any estimate of the cost at the moment.

Sir Anthony Royle: As Argentine aggression caused this heavy expenditure, is it the Government's intention to claim reparations from Argentina?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Shore: I am sure that the House was surprised that of all the Treasury team, the Economic Secretary was left to answer this question. However, as he has replied, I am also surprised that he was not able to give a more forthcoming reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Goolw (Dr. Marshall) at this stage of development.
When considering any of the measures that may be taken to deal with the additional costs brought about by the Falklands operation, will the hon. Gentleman first satisfy himself that there is evidence of overheating of demand in our shipyards and dockyards and in the British aerospace industry? If there is no evidence of overheating of demand, will he make certain that he does not decrease demand in the rest of the economy to meet the undoubted extra cost of repairing the inevitable losses caused by the recent campaign?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The right hon. Gentleman has a slightly exaggerated notion of any conceivable cost arising from the campaign and the impact that it may have on the general issue of management of the economy. I assure the right hon. Gentleman, as I have already assured his hon. Friend, that the campaign and what follows from it will be financed in a manner that is wholly consistent with the general economic and counter-inflation policies of the Government.

Mr. Hoyle: What does that mean?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong to measure the defence of freedom and the maintenance of international law in purely monetary terms? Does he agree that immense long-term benefits will accrue to this country from the example that we have set in the South Atlantic?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I assure my hon. Friend, if he needs to be assured on this score, that the Government have put no cash ceiling on the costs of this operation. We cannot say at this stage what extra costs are involved. However, the extra costs represent, in any case, only a small proportion of the defence budget of £14,000 million. Therefore, there is no immediate cash problem. I am sure that the general proposition put by my hon. Friend is one that will command acceptance throughout the House.

Investment

Mr. Austin Mitchell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he anticipates an increase in the volume of investment in the current year.

Mr. Leighton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the volume of investment for each year since May 1979 at constant prices.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall arrange for detailed figures for the volume of investment since May 1979 to be published in the Official Report. For 1982, the latest survey of investment intentions conducted by the Department of Industry suggested that there would be little change, compared with 1981, in the volume of investment in manufacturing industry, including leased assets. Investment in distribution and services should rise by some 4 per cent.

Mr. Mitchell: I am rather depressed by that news. Bearing in mind the heavy fall in investment in 1980 and 1981, does the Chancellor accept that there will have to be a massive surge of investment in manufacturing industry this year if we are to retain our manufacturing base? Given the Chancellor's increasing tendency to live in cloud-cuckoo-land and to lose touch with economic reality, will he tell us how he expects British industry to survive in a highly competitive world when investment in our manufacturing industry is being cut, in contrast to that of our competitors, who have always invested more than us?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman seems not to realise that the latest investment intentions survey shows a recovery of investment in manufacturing this year, probably sufficient fully to offset the decline in 1981. An even stronger growth should be seen in 1983. I venture to suggest that one of the reasons for the growing confidence of investors in Britain's future is to be found in the declining prospects of the Labour Party.

Mr. Leighton: Is not that information rather worrying? Is not the lack of confidence and investment in British manufacturing industry a conclusive indictment of the Government's economic policy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have explained to the House that the facts are exactly the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman says. The prospective recovery of investment in manufacturing this year should fully offset the decline last year and is likely to increase next year. Moreover, distributive and service sectors can look forward to 12·5 per cent. additional investment in the first half of this year compared with last year. We are planning a substantial increase of 26 per cent. in investment in nationalised industries. I repeat that the main reason for the growing confidence of investors in the future of the economy is their growing certainty about the decline in the prospects of the Labour Party.

Mr. Whitney: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that he will continue to treat with the utmost circumspection any request to increase even further than the figure that he has just announced the investment

£million in 1975 prices



General Government
Public Corporations
Private Sector
Total


1979


Q1
832
858
3368
5058


Q2
804
859
3537
5200


Q3
872
874
3543
5289


Q4
811
849
3750
5410

of public resources in those nationalised industries whose inefficiency continues to be such an obstacle to our national economic recovery?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have already told the House, we are planning a substantial increase of 26 per cent. in investment in nationalised:industries. My hon. Friend correctly underlines the importance of ensuring that that investment is well managed and fully used by those who work with it.

Mr. Cook: Has the Chancellor seen the statistics released a fortnight ago by his Government's Department of Industry? Is he not aware that they show that in 1979—the year in which his party took office—investment in manufacturing industry was at its highest level for 10 years, and that in 1982, three years into the Government's period of office, investment is expected to be at its lowest level for 10 yeas? Does that not more adequately summarise industry's confidence in Government policies than any excuse that he can offer the House?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what had said he would know that, for example, that in the first quarter of this year investment in manufacturing, distributive and service industries was up by 5 per cent. on last year. The decline has come to an end in manufacturing industry and there are prospects of an increase in investment in the year ahead. Moreover, investment in plan: and machinery in the first half of this year is up 8 per cent. on what it was in 1979.

Mr. McCrindle: In view of the many schemes for public investment being pressed upon the Chancellor, will he give the House his opinion of the attempts by such bodies as the British Airports Authority and British Rail to attract private investment? Is he generally approving of such approaches, or is the Treasury concerned at the lack of control over the investment that may ensue?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The report that was prepared last year by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, and the two reports that were produced for the National Economic Development Council, drew attention to the scope for increasing private investment in nationalised industries, provided that the rewards of that investment are related to the risks undertaken and the success achieved, and provided that such investment does not cost more than it should. In that context it is important to be sure of the point made by my hon. Friend.
Following are the figures:
Data on the investment are produced on a quarterly rather than a monthly basis. The nearest data relating to complete years since May 1979 cover the periods end June 1979 to end June 1980 and end June 1980 to end June 1981. No figures for 1982 are yet available, so the corresponding information for 1981–82 cannot be provided. The available figures are as follows:

£million in 1975 prices



General Government
Public Corporations
Private Sector
Total


1980


Q1
763
879
3707
5349


Q2
752
921
3523
5196


Q3
726
869
3521
5116


Q4
690
831
3538
5059


1981


Q1
614
800
3335
4749


Q2
533
861
3386
4780


Q3
450
774
3563
4787


Q4
457
788
3594
4839


1979
3300
3400
14200
20900


1980
2900
3500
14300
20700


1981
2100
3200
13900
19200


Mid 1979 to mid 1980
3200
3500
14500
21200


Mid 1980 to mid 1981
2600
3400
13800
19800

£ Sterling

Mr. Parry: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest purchasing power of the £ sterling compared with May 1979, taking the May 1979 value as 100.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Sixty-eight pence in April 1982.

Mr. Parry: Is the Minister proud of the Government's record in the falling value of the pound, together with the nearly 4 million unemployed, high inflation and squeezes in the public sector? When does he expect the 1979 value of the pound to drop to 50p?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Government are not complacent about the inflation performance. I am bound to point out to the hon. Gentleman that when his party was last in power, in the corresponding first two years and 11 months of the last Labour Government the value of the pound fell from 100p when they took office to 59p. The Labour Party is in no position to speak about such matters. We can say that the trend of inflation is downwards, is progressing, if anything, faster than we foresaw, and that we are fully on course to achieve our objectives for inflation at the end of this year, next year and ahead.

Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend agree that a significant factor in that figure was the explosion of public sector pay in the Government's first year of office? One of the most important factors in that regard was the work of the Clegg Commission and the Pay Research Unit, which we inherited from the Labour Government.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The answer to that must be "Yes, indeed". We have learnt a great deal from that experience. .

Unemployment

Mr. Home Robertson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects his policies to result in a reduction in unemployment.

Mr. Wakeham: The monthly rate of increase in unemployment has slowed considerably in recent months. Vacancies have been higher this year, short-time working has fallen sharply and overtime working has increased. However, progress will be faster the more rapidly we bring down inflation and secure greater responsibility in wage bargaining.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister has answered every question except that which is on the Order Paper.
Now that even official unemployment figures are well over 3 million again, and since recently published figures show that it costs about £5,000 to keep a man on the dole, will the Minister take this opportunity to explain his cussed determination to go on spending over £15,000 million every year on the maintenance of misery?

Mr. Wakeham: The—

Mr. Foulkes: Answer.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that an increase in expansionary, monetary and fiscal policy would produce greater economic growth, when all the evidence is that it feeds through into higher inflation. Higher inflation inhibits growth and damages the longterm prospects of reducing inflation.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the present level of unemployment has its roots in the policies of the Labour Government, who believed that they could spend their way out of their problems? All that they were doing was passing on the problems to those following. The present taxpayer is footing the bill for the profligate policies of the past.

Mr. Wakeham: A substantial cause of Britain's high level of unemployment is the long-term uncompetitiveness of the British economy. In the past year we have seen for the first time a substantial improvement in competitiveness and thus we have some confidence for the future.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the Minister explain why, when unemployment rose to 2 million, the Chancellor of the Exchequer blamed it on the high level of inflation, which was then running in excess of 20 per cent., and yet now, when it is expected to be in single figures, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's public expenditure White Paper expects unemployment to continue to be higher this year, next year and the year after?

Mr. Wakeham: The right hon. Gentleman is experienced in such matters. He knows very well that the White Paper projections are not projections of unemployment, they are forecasts. [Interruption.] They are working assumptions—[Interruption]—for social security planning purposes. It is not the Government's policy, nor was it the policy of the Labour Government, to forecast unemployment.

Economic Outlook

Mr. Canavan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, on the basis of the most recent economic indicators, he remains satisfied with the outlook for the economy.

Mr. Brittan: Lower inflation, the resumed decline in interest rates, business surveys, most outside forecasts and other indicators all point to a continuation in the recovery in the course of this year and in 1983.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister now answer the question that his hon. Friend failed to answer earlier and which the Prime Minister and other Ministers have consistently failed to answer? What is the total estimated cost to the economy of the Falklands operation? Does the Treasury intend to recover that cost by increased taxation, increased borrowing or further savage cuts in public expenditure, which will cripple essential services such as housing, health and education?

Mr. Brittan: I have nothing to add to the earlier answer by my hon. Friend on the subject, particularly since the supplementary question does not relate to the original question. I am happy to reaffirm my hon. Friend's answer. What he said is a significant statement of Government policy. It would be possible to finance the expenditure caused by the Falklands operation in an inflationary way by printing money. Other Governments might have done that, but we shall not.

Mr. Eggar: If my right hon and learned Friend is to build on the achievements that he has outlined and at the same time increase public sector investment, which we all desire, will he confirm that the essential prerequisite to further progress is the control of current public expenditure and, in particular, of public sector wage settlements?

Mr. Brittan: That is so. The message is getting across that the benefit of lower wage settlements is to be found not only in lower inflation rates, which lead to improving the prospects of recovery, but in reducing unemployment difficulties.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Since the growth in unemployment and its grim outlook go side by side with the increasing dilapidation and obsolescence of essential public assets, when will the Government tackle both problems by proposing projects for repairing the country's infrastructure?

Mr. Brittan: I agree that projects for repairing our country's infrastructure have an important part to play to the extent that they can be financed in a way that does not lead to inflation.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Squire. No. 11.

Mr. Shore: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I did not realise that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman wanted to ask a question, or I should have called him earlier.

Mr. Shore: I have to come back to the question of the outlook of the economy and the evidence of recovery. I have in my hand the Index of Industrial Production published half-an-hour ago. It is one of the major indicators of the state of the economy. Does the Chief Secretary confirm that it shows, once one leaves out oil and gas, that there has been no improvement whatever in

the past year? If that is so, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why that important piece of information, which is normally available in the Library at 2 o'clock has beer withheld until after 3 o'clock? Will he now make a real effort to tell the truth about the state of the economy?

Mr. Brittan: I cannot help thinking that there is something a little synthetic in that. The figures were published at 2.30 pm as normal. They show an increase in industrial production for all industries from 100.3 to 101.

Building Societies

Mr. Squire: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of his assessment, Official Report, 13 May, c. 312, that it might be desirable to legislate with respect to building societies, he will list the areas in which he judges additional provision to be necessary.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: As my right hon. and learned Friend said in his recent speech to the Building Societies Association, it seems increasingly likely that there will need to be a major re-examination of building society matters, and possibly legislation, during the course of the next Parliament. The contents of the legislation will depend on the conclusions of the Government on that reexamination. Two of the major topics for re-examination, and so possibly legislation, are those of the powers of societies, and of the constitution of societies, including the accountability of their boards.

Mr. Squire: Is my hon. Friend aware that many who congratulate building societies on their role in widening home ownership are none the less concerned about the actions of a few societies, the directors of which appear to try to restrict their accountability to their members? Will he confirm that, without question, should that practice continue and not be regulated by the movement, legislation will be produced to counter it?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: It is important not to get the matter out of perspective. One or two well-publicised incidents naturally cause anxiety. I can assure my hon. Friend that it wound be suitable for us to cover such matters in legislation, if there is such provision, in the next Parliament.

Mr. Ashton: Does the Minister accept that if the Government want to put up inflation by increasing the price of petrol by 20p they have to come to the House and do that in the Budget, but if the building societies want to put up mortgages by £20 a month they do not have to ask anybody? Surely the House should decide when mortgage interest rates should go up, not a tiny handful of men in the building societies?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On the whole, our experience of Government trying to regulate the price mechanism in the private sector is that it does not have much to recommend it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Alton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Alton: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the ceasefire agreed in the South Atlantic has been extended to cover all military activities in that area? How many prisoners are held by British forces in the South Atlantic? Does she agree that the callous indifference shown by the Argentine junta towards its own men demonstrates very eloquently indeed its indifference to life and dignity?

The Prime Minister: We have not yet been able to procure a complete ceasefire in the South Atlantic. We seek such a ceasefire for the reasons that I explained last time I answered questions. It is important for us in the future.
The figures for the number of prisoners that I gave to the House the other day were given to us by the commandant of the Argentine forces, whom we assumed knew the numbers. I am not sure that that assumption was correct. As far as we are aware, the latest estimate is 10,660, but the final figure is not yet confirmed. The only solution is to do an actual count to make certain of the numbers.
I agree with what the hon. Member said about the Argentine indifference to the state of its prisoners. We are trying hard to return the younger conscripts as soon as possible. The "Canberra" will be loaded by this evening with about 5,000 young Argentine prisoners of war. So far Argentina has not agreed a safe conduct to allow those prisoners to be repatriated to any Argentine Port. Argentina is attempting to insist that they go to Montevideo, which is a lot further away and would take longer.

Mr. Sainsbury: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the plight of the journalists still imprisoned in Argentina? Can she assure the House that their immediate and unconditional release will form part of any arrangements that we are eventually able to arrive at with Argentina?

The Prime Minister: We have already made further representations about the journalists, through the Swiss embassy, asking that they be restored to Britain as part of the arrangements for the repatriation of prisoners.

Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Lady for the representations that she has made on that matter. The Opposition hope that the ceasefire can be made as effective as possible as swiftly as possible.
I turn to another subject, because other matters must proceed. I understand that the right hon. Lady has had to concentrate on the Falkland Islands, but will she now direct the Secretary of State for Employment to intervene in the railway dispute, so that a bitter railway strike is avoided?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. That is a matter for the British Railways Board. We regard it as important that it secures the increases in productivity which so far have not been forthcoming.

Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Lady mean that she and the Government are to stand idly by and do nothing whatever on the subject? I urge her once again to look at

the facts afresh. If she will do that she will see that the unions have a strong case to put. I hope that she will try to get the Department of Employment to do its proper job, to try to prevent industrial disputes of this nature rising to a crisis. That is what the Department ought to be doing.

The Prime Minister: The management of British Rail is a matter for the management and the board, and not for the Government. The Government set the external financing limit for British Rail, which this year is about £950 million, the highest ever.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the report has now been received from the public analyst on a certain substance recently subjected to analysis and that I have obtained a copy of the report? It shows that the substance under test consisted of ferrous matter of the highest quality, that it is of exceptional tensile strength, is highly resistant to wear and tear and to stress, and may be used with advantage for all national purposes?

The Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I think that I am very grateful indeed to the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with every word that he said.

Sir Bernard Braine: Bearing in mind that the Falklands conflict has been the direct result of criminal irresponsibility by a Fascist dictatorship, which has defied the United Nations, has not hesitated to use outlawed weapons and, at this moment, is refusing to declare hostilities at an end, thereby increasing the anxieties of the prisoners in our hands, would not my right hon. Friend think it right and humane to inform each prisoner by letter of our concern for his welfare and our wish for his early and safe return to his country, and for such a letter to make it plain where the responsibility for delaying such an end lies?

The Prime Minister: I realise the very worthy purpose behind what my hon. Friend has said, but our first concern is to get some of the young Argentine conscripts repatriated. We are trying to do that with all possible speed and his valuable suggestion would, I am afraid, hold that up.

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Powell: Further to my question to the right hon. Lady on Tuesday, is she aware that a strike took place yesterday of 26,000 Welsh miners who were protesting against the Government's miserable and mean offer of 4 per cent. to the National Health Service workers? Will the Prime Minister now put pressure on her Minister at least to offer them a fair and reasonable amount? Surely she has enough blood on her hands?

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

The Prime Minister: The answer is "No, Sir".

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Leaving aside the ridiculous question that we have just heard, will my right hon. Friend turn to the Northern Ireland Bill what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) calls her golden talents and ask him whether he will drop his opposition to it?

The Prime Minister: That is not for me to ask.

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Lady find time today to turn her attention to the long-term unemployed, the growing, vast and sad army of people whose prospects—

Mr. Alan Clark: What about genocide in the Lebanon? What about the Palestinians? Tell us about that.

Mr. Janner: Does the Prime Minister agree that there are problems at home that are causing vast worry, including the 50 per cent. of constituents in some parts of Leicester who are unemployed? What specific steps will she take to assist those people?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman began his question by asking specifically about the longterm unemployed. It was with those people in mind, and because we were anxious to relieve that unemployment, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, during the Budget, set aside £150 million to see whether we could find useful work for those people. That £150 million has not yet been used, but the Manpower Services Commission is, I hope, shortly to put forward proposals for the best way in which it could be used to help the very many people whom the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Budgen: In view of the great compliment that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) paid to my right hon. Friend, could she tell the House whether she has recently fought any battle on his behalf in Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: I fight both the battles of war and the battles of peace frequently.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: In view of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the subsequent deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, will the Prime Minister seek an urgent meeting with her European partners with a view to achieving, on a European basis, military and economic sanctions against Israel?

The Prime Minister: Statements have been issued by the European Foreign Ministers and political heads condemning vigorously the occupation of, and the intrusion into, the Lebanon by Israeli forces. The Foreign Ministers will be meeting again shortly. I do not believe that there is very much likelihood of sanctions against Israel. I join the hon. Gentleman in saying that what has happened is, in a way, a double tragedy. First, there is the invasion of the Lebanon itself with all the deaths, devastation and suffering that it has caused and, secondly, the fact that that invasion was made by a country which has itself suffered so much in the past and whose suffering we have always tried to alleviate.

Mr. Dykes: Further to the exchanges on the end of hostilities in the Falklands and the internal position in Argentina, will my right hon. Friend examine the rumours about the long-term detention in Argentine gaols of British nationals, who have been illegally imprisoned for many years and been tortured by the secret police or by the other agencies of the regime without justification? Will she press for their immediate release?

The Prime Minister: Of course we would press for the release of any de:ained British citizens about which we knew and would make representations to the Argentine junta. It is partly because of the nature of the Argentine junta and the total lack of human rights in Argentina that we were so anxious to get the Argentines to leave the Falklands, and were prepared to use force to do so.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Prime Minister give some time during her busy day to comment further on the statements that she made on Tuesday about the nature and content of the inquiry that might be made into the Falklands dispute? In particular, does she take the view that it can be done under existing legislation, such as the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 or does it require further legislation and a specific role for the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: It is not necessary to carry out an inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act. Indeed, I think that a number of people would say that it would be most undesirable to pursue that particular form of inquiry. I shall, as I indicated, shortly be writing with suggested terms of reference and the form of the inquiry to the Leader of the Opposition and to the leaders of other political parties in the House.

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Not least because the World Cup is being held in Spain, would my right hon. Friend consider today appealing to the many thousands of young British football fans, whatever the provocation, not to behave in a way that might detract from the outstanding heroism shown by our young soldiers in the Falklands, who are their contemporaries?

The Prime Minister: I warmly endorse what my hon. Friend has said. I hope that those young people will be as good representatives of this country as our Armed Forces have been in the South Atlantic.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister reflect on her earlier reply concerning Health Service workers, because they are a far mole deserving case than, say, judges or top civil servants—

Mr. Skinner: And the House of Lords.

Mr. Hoyle: Or the House of Lords. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the cost of helping the Health Service workers would be only a fraction of what the Falkland Islands operations have cost?

The Prime Minister: We increased the cash limit of the National Health Service to make a higher offer to the nurses. The hon. Gentleman will know that the amount being spent on the Health Service this year is 6 per cent. in real terms above what it was in 1979. Beyond that, I leave the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed during questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that four questions, Nos. 4,


15, 16 and 20, were couched in identical terms. As I recall, Mr. Speaker, you have deprecated that practice in questions other than to the Prime Minister, and have been critical of such identical questions to the Prime Minister. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, he appeared, in a curious manner, to read ready-written replies to anticipated questions. I therefore ask you to investigate the possibility that the questions were planted so that the Chancellor could produce ready-written replies to bolster the otherwise rather barren replies that he normally gives.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members who table questions take responsibility for them, and the Minister takes responsibility for the answers.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It was not a point of order.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Prime Minister's Question Time the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) accused the Prime Minister of having blood on her hands. Do you not agree that that was a disgusting accusation?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Personal abuse adds nothing to anyone's argument. I let the matter go, as did the Prime Minister, and I think that we had better leave it there

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 21 JUNE—Supply (20th Allotted Day). Until about 7 o'clock a debate on the crisis in British Rail, followed by a debate on the unemployment crisis among young people. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motions on the Departments (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order and on the Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations.
TUESDAY 22 JUNE—Consideration of a timetable motion on the Northern Ireland Bill. Afterwards, a debate on the Middle East, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 23 JUNE—Committee stage of the Northern Ireland Bill.
THURSDAY 24 JUNE—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill.
Motion relating to the building (Prescribed Fees) Regulations.
FRIDAY 25 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Derelict Land Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill.
MONDAY 28 JUNE—Supply (21st Allotted Day). Subject for debate to be announced.

Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for arranging the debate on the Middle East, which is obviously urgent and necessary and for which we have asked. I urge him also to invite the Prime Minister to make a statement on disarmament to the House, now that she has delayed her mission to the United States in this connection. Could she make a statement to the House on the subject, or could a debate be arranged, before she goes?
We have had to provide the time for the debate on British Rail on Monday. We thought that the Government should have provided the time, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that the Minister will make a statement, preferably before the debate but at any rate during the debate, to help to alleviate the prospect of a bitter dispute in the railway industry.
On the subject of the guillotine on the Northern Ireland Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the metal of which the guillotine is likely to be made, and whether it will be applied to the neck of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), and, indeed, to his followers? Is it not sad that so early in his career as Leader of the House the right hon. Gentleman should sacrifice his virginity in this manner? Is it not deplorable that the right hon. Gentleman should have to apply a guillotine so indiscriminately to his own followers?

Mr. Biffen: I suspect that I am as fallen as any creature who has ever occupied this position. If we are to examine one another's records and performances, I have no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition's record and performance will be under scrutiny next Tuesday, too.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the debate on the Middle East.
We mentioned earlier the possibility of a statement being made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on disarmament, and I shall draw her attention again to what the right hon. Gentleman said, although it is more likely that such a statement will be made on her return from New York than before her departure.
On the question of the debate that has beem arranged for Monday on the railway industry, I am certain that my right hon. Friend will take part in that debate and will make a compelling and constructive contribution to it.

Sir David Price: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to early-day motion: 517 relating to the role of the Merchant Navy in the South Atlantic and reaffirming the importance to our nation of a strong and prosperous Merchant Navy?
[That this House salutes the men and women of the Merchant Navy serving with the Task Force in the South Atlantic; mourns the loss of life among British seafarers in upholding the democratic rights of the Falkland Islanders and of the international rule of law; and reaffirms the importance to the defence of the nation of a strong and prosperous Mercantile Marine.]
Does he agree that, in the wake of the success in the South Atlantic, it is important soon to discuss that matter?

Mr. Biffen: My attention has been drawn to the motion, and I agree with the interpretation that my hon. Friend places on it.

Mr. James Molyneaux: On the subject of the only sensible item of Northern Ireland business next week, will the Leader of the House respond to our request for an extension of time for the debate on the Northern Ireland Departments order?
On the question of the timetable motion on Tuesday on the Northern Ireland Bill, without in any way impugning the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman or that of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, is it not monstrous that the Government should decide to force on a small and embattled part of the nation a measure which undoubtedly will weaken the United Kingdom and damage our place in it? Might I add, in connection with the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition, that we shall watch with close interest how he and those of his troops who have not already surrendered will behave in that debate and at the end of the debate?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: We shall be supporting the Government.

Mr. Biffen: The intervention of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) reminds me that Tuesday may well be a unique arid colourful parliamentary occasion. I recognise the deep feelings that are released by both the Bill and the timetable proposal. They will be canvassed in the debate that is to take place on Tuesday, and it would not be appropriate for me to anticipate that debate now.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the motion on the Departments (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order, I shall of course take note of what he has said, but I must tell him that on the previous occasion when such an order concerning the Departments was debated is did not last as long as the time that is now being allotted.

Mr. Edward du Cann: Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D.


Price), will my right hon. Friend consider before long allocating a day for a debate on defence, with particular reference to the Falkland Islands? Without doubt, there are right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House who have views about matters such as ship construction, the provision of early-warning radar, and a host of other important matters which they wish to have taken into consideration in the careful review that the Department of Defence undoubtedly is currently conducting with a view, of course, to influencing and changing policy.

Mr. Biffen: Although it is clear from my statement that such a debate cannot take place next week, I hope that it will be possible to meet the points of my right hon. Friend in the near future.

Mr. John Roper: Will the Leader of the House consider bringing forward to next week the resolutions implementing the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure (Supply) that alter the Supply procedures of the House? Following the assurances that were given by his predecessor, will he ensure that when we debate the matter there will be an opportunity to consider the allocation of Supply days between the various Opposition parties?

Mr. Biffen: I have already said that I hope that there will be an early opportunity for the House to debate the matter. I note the hon. Gentleman's second point, but I cannot guarantee that I shall be able to meet this request.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Does the Leader of the House anticipate any ministerial statements being made next week in a written answer? Is he aware that that is an abhorrent practice? Is he also aware that an important statement was made by that means on Wednesday about smoking, health hazards and sport sponsorship? Does he agree that that form of answer deprived the House of an opportunity to question the agreement which is now being made and which will last for three years?

Mr. Biffen: I shall, of course, draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Gentleman's irritation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the practice is by no means novel.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: At what time does my right hon. Friend expect Tuesday's debate on the Middle East to start and finish?

Mr. Biffen: I hope that the debate on the Middle East will follow the timetable motion debate that will last for three hours. I propose that the business of the House should be exempted for two hours so that a reasonable time can be given to so important a subject as the Middle East.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 541?
[That this House is gravely concerned at the news that, after the strong, warm and deserved congratulations expressed to the Forces, and the many shipbuilding and dockyard workers for their unselfish efforts during the Falklands crisis together with the deep sorrow at the loss of many men and ships, including the 'Atlantic Conveyor', the Cunard Line are considering placing an order for the replacement of the 'Atlantic Conveyor' with a Japanese shipyard; believes that this is a strange and unpatriotic way of rewarding the workers of this country for their

recent efforts and further notes with alarm the Minister's recent reply indicating that Her Majesty's Government who undoubtedly will be paying compensation for the loss of the 'Atlantic Conveyor', are not prepared to take any action to ensure that this order is placed in British shipyards but prefer instead to reward foreign shipyards with work when British workers' great efforts in getting HMS 'Illustrious' to sea in record time are to be rewarded by further redundancies.]
Does he agree that to allow the replacement for the "Atlantic Conveyor" to be built in a Japanese yard would be a gross betrayal of the brave merchantmen who lost their lives or were wounded when that ship was sunk? Does he further agree that it would also be a betrayal of Tyneside workers who have worked themselves out of a job to get HMS "Illustrious" ready for the Falklands, if need be?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the motion to which the hon. Gentleman referred commands widespread support in Britain and elsewhere. He will also appreciate that Cunard must make a decision that takes account of many factors, including economic ones.

Mr. Terence Higgins: I welcome my right hon. Friend's forthcoming response to the question about tabling motions to implement the Select Committee's proposals on the procedure of Supply. May I urge him to do so next week or the week after so that other Select Committees may have an opportunity to understand the position and can prepare for implementation of the proposals in the next Session?

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's point. Although I cannot give a commitment here and now, I shall examine the matter.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Since, predictably, hostilities are not at an end, what proposals do the Government have for a report on the new phase of the South Atlantic war? Is it wise—perhaps the Government will make a statement on the matter—to use the prisoners as a bargaining counter for policy ends, which could lead to all kinds of difficulties? Although one is certain that our Armed Forces will be as careful as possible, what will happen if any prisoners die in our hands? How will that be used against us and how shall we achieve a lasting solution? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there should be a report on the matter?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Government have not been negligent in making time available for the House to discuss matters pertaining to the South Atlantic. I agree that there will be continuing problems that will merit the attention of the House. However, I have no proposals for amending the programme of business for next week.

Sir Philip Goodhart: Now that the Falklands campaign has been brought to such a satisfactory conclusion, can my right hon. Friend say what Defence and Service Estimates debates will be held before the Summer Recess?
On next week's business, can my right hon. Friend say whether there are any precedents for a Government introducing a guillotine motion on a constitutional Bill that flouts the terms of their own general election manifesto?

Mr. Biffen: There are precedents for the introduction of guillotines on constitutional Bills. I am sure that there will be more than one interpretation of the Conservative Party election manifesto commitments.
On my hon. Friend's first point, I hope that I shall be able to make further announcements about a defence debate shortly.

Mr. Clement Freud: Will the Leader of the House examine Early-Day Motion 424?
[That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to stamp out as a matter of urgency the great and growing market in pirate video cassettes; draws attention to the fact that some 65 per cent. of video cassettes sold in the United Kingdom are now seen by this means, and that this is now a serious area of illegal activity which is having a gravely damaging effect on both the production and exhibition sides of the British film industry.]
Is he aware that the Department of Trade has published the fact that 70 per cent. of all video cassettes that are sold have been pirated? Does he agree that it would be right for the Government to make an amendment to section 21 of the Copyright Act 1956, which would be unopposed, to bring the penalty in line with other countries, rather than pursuing the laborious process of having it introduced in another place by private Members' legislation?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will discover that the House has recently debated that subject, thanks to the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan), I shall draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.

Mr. John Stokes: Now that the fighting in the Falkland Islands is over, will my right hon. Friend consider next week the best way in which the House can express its thanks for the achievement of our forces in the South Atlantic? As most people will be attending church services of thanksgiving on Sunday, will the House have an opportunity of going to a similar service at St. Margaret's?

Mr. Biffen: On my hon. Friend's second point, I do not know, but I shall make immediate inquiries and let him know. On his first point, yes, the Government are now considering the matter.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Leader of the House said that the Prime Minister will make a statement on her return from the United Nations. When is a debate likely as there are two important items—the world disarmament campaign and the world disarmament conference—that have been adopted by the second special session on disarmament? Does he agree that they need to be debated by the House?
Secondly, on the Supply day debate, when stating their case on the vexed question of unemployment will Government spokesmen take any account of the massive number of redundancies that are being announced by GEC in Bradford and others so that the Government can bring some pressure to bear on a massive combine to reverse that decision?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot hold out any promise for a debate on disarmament next week. More generally, in view of the pressure on parliamentary time, a debate is unlikely. On the unemployment debate, I am sure that the hon.
Gentleman will make the points that he believes will sustain his arguments and the Government will counter them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is considerable interest in the debate on European union that is to be interrupted at 7 o'clock by private business. I therefore propose to call three more hon. Members from each side.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that time will be provided for a debate on the nature, scope and membership of the inquiry into the Falkland Islands invasion?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Question Time.

Mr. Tom Arnold: In view of the observations of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is aware that many of his hon. Friends wish to see the Northern Ireland. Bill on the statute book?

Mr. Biffen: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Social Services on the fact that, because of the vicious and heartless policy of the Tory Government, the Royal Marsden hospital faces the prospect of closing 33 cancer beds to avert a £750,000 deficit? If money can be taken from the Contingency Fund to resolve matters in the South Atlantic, why cannot the Tories take £750,000 from the same fund to save the cancer beds at the Royal Marsden?

Mr. Biffen: My understanding of the problem does not precisely coincide with that of the hon. Gentleman, but I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to the point that he has made.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. Friend provide time in the near future for a discussion on industrial relations in which we may explore the motives of the Labour Party in publishing today proposals to introduce trade union rights for Service men and Service women?

Mr. Biffen: Regretfully, I cannot do that.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Leader of the House have discussions through the usual channels with regard to early-day motion 533 concerning my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman)?
[That this Rouse welcomes with great pleasure the announcement by the City of Birmingham District Council to honour the honourable Member for Birmingham, Erdington, with the freedom of the City; and well recognises, with Birmingham, the dedicated service and devotion to Birmingham citizens shown by the honourable Member over a long and distinguished career as a Member both of the City Council and of this honourable House.]
If it cannot be debated, could it be formally accepted by the House? Is the Leader of the House aware that this is a unique situation, in that my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington has given almost 40 years' loyal service to the House and to the people of Birmingham? I am sure that hon. Members on both sides would agree unanimously to pay that tribute to him.

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that there is widespread support for that motion, but in the circumstances I am not convinced that there is a need to go through any more formalities.

Mr. John Farr: My right hon. Friend has arranged for the debate on the guillotine motion for the Northern Ireland Bill to take place next Tuesday and the continuation of the Committee proceedings the following day. Has he made any arrangements for the possibility that the House will not approve the guillotine motion? If that happens, what alternative business will be dealt with on Wednesday?

Mr. Biffen: I think that we shall just have to see how we go.

Agriculture and Fisheries (Ministerial Meetings)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the meetings of the Council of Agriculture Ministers and of the Council of Fisheries Ministers held in Luxembourg on 14 and 15 June respectively.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture Council.
Agreement was reached on rules governing the approval of newly developed proteins—for example, from yeast—for use as animal feedingstuffs in the Community. The United Kingdom has a strong industrial interest in this and agreement will help our industry to exploit the technology that it has pioneered.
There was discussion of a new framework regulation on wine, but no decisions were reached on this and discussions will be continued at the next Council.
The Council discussed minimum space standards for battery hens. I emphasised that the Community legislation must provide satisfactory arrangements for ensuring uniform enforcement throughout the Community. The Council will resume its discussions on this at the next meeting.
Together with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of State, I represented the United Kingdom at the Fisheries Council.
The President of the Commission presented the Commission's proposals on total allowable catches and quotas and on access and it was agreed that these proposals would be considered at a further Council meeting on 28–29 June. In the meantime, I have arranged for consultations with our industry.
The Council reached agreement on the arrangements for enforcement of the Community rules on fishing. This provides for member States to enforce the rules in their own waters, subject to Community inspection to ensure that all countries enforce the rules effectively and impartially. The control regulation will come into force as part of a general settlement of a revised common fisheries policy or on 1 January 1983, whichever is the earlier. It is obviously essential that our fishermen can rely on the rules being enforced as effectively by other countries as they are by the United Kingdom. This agreement is a major step forward and follows the initiative that the United Kingdom took last year.
The Council also made progress on a revised conservation regulation.
Lastly, the Council agreed to authorise the continuation of payments to fishermen in respect of various market support measures. These will apply while detailed work goes ahead on the implementation of the new marketing regime.
This was a useful meeting, preparing the way for the major discussions on quotas and access at the end of the month.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, the Minister, and the House will sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), who cannot be present this afternoon as his wife


has been taken ill. I am sure that we all recognise that he means no disrespect to the House and that we all wish his wife a speedy recovery. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".]
The Minister's statement covered important but narrow points on wine distillation, protein feeds and battery hens which we might examine in more detail on another occasion. We are surprised, however, that it contained no comment on the possible revaluation of the green franc and any discussion that may have taken place on that, nor on the B quota sugar levy. In view of the content of the statement and press reports on a possible fisheries agreement, however, I shall concentrate on that aspect.
Does the Minister accept that the reported 35·4 per cent. of valuable species, 30·9 per cent. of herring and an exclusive zone of only six miles are totally at variance with the oft-repeated and unanimous view of the House? Does he agree that if this were accepted it would be a sell-out of a divided, demoralised and decimated industry, the end of our deep-sea fleet, insecurity for the majority of inshore fishermen and a negation of what his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) guaranteed to the House when he negotiated Britain's entry 10 years ago?
Is the Minister aware that no improvement in enforcement procedures, however welcome, can compensate for such losses? Will he therefore undertake to hold a debate in Government time on these proposals, perhaps on the basis of early-day motion 535 on the British fishing industry signed by a number of his hon. Friends? Will he also respect the views of the House and the industry and reject the proposals as an abject surrender of British national interests?

Mr. Walker: On the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is clear that he has no idea what is in the proposals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why does not the right hon. Gentleman tell us?"] I can only repeat the assurance that I have always given to the House that no agreement will be reached which does not have the agreement of our industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the House."] I should be most surprised if either side of the House decided to go into the Lobbies to reject an agreement that the British fishing industry required and wanted for the future. The hon. Gentleman's entirely party political reaction is in complete contrast to that of the fishermen who were with me in Brussels this week and who will spend tomorrow at the Ministry considering the proposals quota by quota and item by item. If Labour Members have the fishing industry rather than party politics in mind, they should listen to the industry rather than making remarks of that kind.
Moreover, if I, unlike the Labour Party, deliver to the fishing industry a European agreement that it requires, it will be more important to the stability and future of our fishing industry than anything else that has been done in the past 10 years. We shall attain a negotiating position with the industry that I hope will bring it a much greater stability and better financial future than it has had in the past. The reason why I did not deal with the revaluation of the green franc was that there were no proposals about it at the Council.

Sir Marcus Kimballs: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing opinion that, unless regulations are made to ban the use of monofilament nets, both as a drift net and as a leader to a bag net, all negotiations about catches and quotas will be null and void?

Mr. Walker: I appreciate that many fishermen have strong feelings on the subject, but it does not form part of the common fisheries policy.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Minister understand that, if he abandons principles and requirements in the national interests that have been affirmed by the House, he cannot shelter from the consequences of doing so behind the agreement, real or alleged, enforced or cajoled, of the so-called representatives of the industry?

Mr. Walker: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not treat the fishing industry in Northern Ireland with such disrespect as to say that it cannot advise and talk to the Government about what it considers to be its long, medium and short-term interests. I hope that he is not criticising me; because, unlike some of my predecessors, throughout the negotiations: have not agreed to any measure or negotiating position that has not been discussed with or agreed by the fishing industry. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will applaud that rather than decry it.

Mr. David Penhaligon: What percentage of the North Sea is in our waters? How much will it cost to monitor that and what provision do we need to expand our current capacity? Will it help to stop the Spanish fiddle in my area, because it appears to be possible that a Spanish boat with a British passenger can fish within the minimum limits that protect the Cornish fishing fleet?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman's latter point is a legal point that now being considered. The control measures are immensely important and mean that we shall not only have total control but that other countries will have a Commission inspectorate to ensure that they have the same standards as we have had and shall continue to have in our waters. Fishing industry representatives, especially from Cornwall, emphasised the fact that there is no point in having a common fisheries policy if it is not enforced.

Sir Peter Mills: Does my right hon. Friend agree that future success depends upon the policing and the enforcement of any rules and regulations that are made, especially in view of the introduction of Spain into the Community? Will he assure the House that we have adequate means to police and to control, especially in a vast area such as the South-West of England?

Mr. Walker: I agree with that, but enforcement is no good unless one is enforcing an agreement satisfactory to the British fishing industry. That is why it is important that we should negotiate adequate quotas and access arrangements to give the industry a secure future. Enforcement of inadequate quotas and access arrangements would be completely unacceptable. If we achieve the result that we require, it will be no good without proper enforcement and that is why I am delighted that the regulations adopted at the meeting were based upon a draft submitted by the British Government.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that, as some Scottish fishermen are already alleging that their leaders have been conned by the Ministry into approving the negotiations, he cannot rely on selling a package to the House on the ground that it has the approval of tie fishing industry?
There are reports that a special deal has been made for the Orkneys and Shetlands, which I support. Why is there not a similar deal for the Western Isles, which is at least as dependent on fisheries as other areas?

Mr. Walker: I note the right hon. Gentleman's insulting remarks about the leaders of the Scottish fishing industry. Industry leaders will confirm that I have sought their advice and that I have not endeavoured to persuade them to pursue any attitude or policy towards quotas or access. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] They know that, but the right hon. Gentleman does not. I am sorry that, as with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), he is insulting the views and the wisdom of the industry leaders.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Can the Minister tell us a little more about the new enforcement measures which, on their face, seem to be even more cumbersome than in the past, which will make them more difficult to monitor? Will he be a little more forthcoming about access, because I learnt nothing from his statement about what is on the table? Can he assure the House solemnly—it may be difficult—that, whatever the proposals are, he will not make any recommendation to the fishing industry?

Mr. Walker: I assure the House that my entire view about our fishing policy is based upon the advice that I obtain from the industry as to its requirements for stocks and port by port access arrangements. Since I have been the Minister, the fishing industry has influenced me and I have always made it clear that I shall come to no agreement without discussing matters with the representatives and receiving their support. No Minister could be more fair to an industry than that. I am sorry that, when I pursue that policy, some hon. Members say that perhaps the leaders of the fishing industry are bad leaders. The best that I can do is to consult the leaders, and I have done that. The enforcement proposal put forward by us is straighforward and uncomplicated. It will enable the Commission to inspect other countries' methods, to board ships and to see all ships' documents.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In order to be fair to those Members who are interested in later business, I intend to call four more hon. Members from either side.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend lose no opportunity to press on the Commission that illegal fishing beyond quota should not be permitted to establish a base for future quota allocations?

Mr. Walker: The problem with having no agreement is that there are no quotas. The importance of getting an agreement is that only when one has agreed quotas in a common fisheries policy can one ensure that a member country can be stopped from fishing beyond its quota.

Mr. Thomas Torney: As the British fishing industry has been fading away while the Common Market has been talking, how does the Minister propose to protect the fishing industry when matters are decided in the Common Market by majority voting and the right of veto has disappeared? Will he explain that to the House?

Mr. Walker: I shall explain the hon. Gentleman's earlier statement about the decline of the fishing industry. Such decline as took place in the long-distance fleet happened before I took office. It was due to the loss of Icelandic waters and had nothing to do with the Common Market. However, the number of vessels elsewhere has increased.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: May I as a Member part of whose constituency forms one of the largest fishing communities in Europe, congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress made towards a common fisheries policy? My right hon. Friend is right to condemn the disparaging remarks of the right hon. Members for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I am sure that the Minister will confirm that there will be no sell-out of the fishing industry and that he will continue to consult the leaders of the industry before a final common fisheries policy is effected on 1 January 1983. That will show that the disparaging remarks made in early-day motion 482 by the right hon. Member for Western Isles and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) are disgusting.
[That this House deplores the statement in the `Scotsman' newspaper dated 25th May, page 8, which attributes to Mrs. Winifred Ewing, the only Scottish Nationalist Party member of the European Assembly, an accusation that Her Majesty's Government proposes a sell-out of the fishing industry in the negotiations for a renegotiated common fisheries policy, which is a typical hysterical outburst from this European Economic Community member who is not even a member of any British group in the Assembly and is completely out of touch with Her Majesty's Government's statements made on many occasions by the Prime Minister and all Fisheries Ministers that no common fisheries policy will be agreed which has not received the total support of the leaders and members of the fishing industry; and calls upon the fishing industry to treat this accusation with the contempt it deserves.]

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It would be interesting to have noted the views of the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) had I decided to ignore the advice of the leaders of the fishing industry because he does not approve of them. I did the opposite and consulted them throughout and I shall make sure that they are consulted to the end.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: While I accept the Minister's statement that the long-term stability of the fishing industry would be assisted by the ending of 10 years of uncertainty, would the Minister agree to strengthen his negotiating hand in Brussels in the next crucial round of talks by publishing the views of the industry as to what its bottom line is, and give his views so that, as on previous occasions before important negotiations, the House can endorse and whole-heartedly support the stand the Minister takes?

Mr. Walker: I cannot imagine a worse way of negotiating than to publish our bottom line requirements. In negotiations I wish to obtain all of the fish and all the priorities for British fishermen that I can. I certainly should not negotiate after having published my bottom line requirements. I assure the House that I shall consult stock by stock—as I am doing tomorrow with the fishing


Industry—their priorities and what they consider important for particular ports. I shall have the most detailed assessment of what the industry requires that any Minister has ever had. I shall negotiate accordingly, and I shall have the fishing industry with me in Brussels.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Regarding access and fishing limits, is my right hon. Friend aware that in the far South-West—because of the fishermen's vulnerability—there are increasing anxieties following this week's meeting about their future and the ability of the inshore fishing industry to earn a living? There must be no going back on assurances given to the industry by successive Governments and the House.

Mr. Walker: I am aware of the detailed problems and requirements of the South-West. I assure my hon. Friend that their requirements will be part of our negotiations before we reach a settlement.

Mr. John Prescott: The Secretary of State must agree with hon. Members representing fishing communities like Hull—where the fleets have declined from 160 to 16 ships and from 3,000 to 300 men and from ¼ million tonnes of fish to 13,000 tonnes—that their community representatives, not an agreement between the Government and industry, must decide policy in the House. The difference between dominant preference, which was the policy of the House, and adequate quotas is the difference of between 60 per cent. —giving us enough fish to maintain a fishing fleet at the 1970 level—and 36 per cent. which will mean the destruction of areas like Hull. Is that being done in the name of European unity or is it a further price for the Falklands support?

Mr. Walker: As he has been a Member for Hull, the hon. Gentleman will know under whose Government the main decline in Hull took place. This Government have doubled the aid given to the fishing industry, including Hull, compared with the previous Government. I do not want lectures from the hon. Gentleman as to who has treated Hull the worse.
The hon. Gentleman knows that never in the history of British fishing has there been any question of our having 60 per cent. of the catch of European waters.

Mr. John Townend: The fishermen of Bridlington are grateful to my right hon. Friend and his colleagues for achieving adequate conservation measures. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that in the future there will not be the same amount of cheating as there has been by the French, the Dutch and the Danes in the past? The main requirement is still a 12-mile exclusion zone.

Mr. Walker: Yes. That is why the fishing industry was so pleased this week that we not only obtained agreement on the control regulations to ensure that enforcement took place but also agreed that, irrespective of the timing of anygeneral common fisheries policy agreement, the control regulations will come into operation on 1 January 1983.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Since the Minister is reluctant to tell us what we are negotiating about until the final settlement comes as a pleasant surprise, will he confirm the lines of settlement reported in the newspapers, which amount effectively to a six-mile exclusive zone, a six-mile dominant preference zone and a share of 35 per cent. for a nation that takes two-thirds of the fish stock to the Common Market pool? Would not a settlement along those lines betray the requirements of the House and the promises held out in the Conservative Party manifesto and the express wishes of the fishing industry? No Minister of integrity should accept such a settlement.

Mr. Walker: It is nonsense to suggest that we shall have only six miles. We have always stated that we wanted 12 miles. I have said that in agreeing to 12 miles we would have to take into account in our own and other countriesinterests any historic rights that existed in the six to 12-mile limit before we joined the Community. The hon. Gentle man knows that. We have always enjoyed historic fishing rights in the six to 1.2-mile limit around the coast of the Irish Republic. I do not believe that our fishermen would be delighted if we got rid of that. We have certain historic fishing rights in the six to 12-mile limits around France. I do not believe that our fishermen along the South coast would be pleased if that were eliminated. The pretence that we have switched to a six-mile limit is completely wrong.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS for MONDAY 6 JULY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. George Gardiner
Mr. Michael Hamilton
Sir Victor Goodhew

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business), the Motions relating to Church of England (General Synod) Measures may be proceeded with, though opposed, until One o'clock, or for three hours after the first Motion has been entered upon, whichever is the later, and if proceedings on the said Motions have not been disposed of by that hour, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of them.—(Mr. Boscawen.)

European Union

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the Opposition amendment.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Document containing the latest text of the German-Italian proposals on European Union.
I want to make clear the status of the document that we are considering. The original proposals prepared by the German and Italian Foreign Ministers were submitted to the European Council in London in November 1981. The Council asked the Foreign Ministers, in collaboration with the Commission, to examine and clarify the proposals and report back to a future meeting of the European Council.
The original text of the proposals was deposited in the House, with an explanatory memorandum, on 15 January. The proposals were examined by the Scrutiny Committee, which recommended them for debate. The Belgian Presidency decided to set up a group of senior officials to examine the proposals. That group started work in January and it soon became clear that several member States had reservations about several parts of the proposals. Others needed clarification where the precise intention or meaning was not clear. Foreign Ministers asked officials to produce a revised text that took account of those points of view. That text is now before the House. It has the status of a working document and no Government are committed to it. It contains a number of passages in square brackets which show that agreement on those passages has not yet been reached. The text will be considered by Foreign Ministers at their meeting on 20 June.
For the Government, and I think for the House, an important part of that discussion will be the opportunity to discuss again the problem of decision making in the Community. This is crucial because of the overriding, at the Agriculture Council on 18 May, of our invocation of the Luxembourg compromise. We regard that action as plain wrong and our partners are in no doubt about that. We have arranged for a separate discussion of that issue at the meeting of the Council on Sunday.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: If this is an unagreed working document on which there are many issues to discuss, why have my right hon. Friend and his colleagues put down a three-line Whip saying that we should take note of it?

Mr. Hurd: I should like to develop our attitude towards the document as I go through it in my speech. We welcome the general approach of the document but work remains on several of the proposals contained within it, and we have reservations which have not yet been taken into account. It seemed at this stage that a take-note motion would be appropriate. I know that some of my hon. Friends think that such a motion goes too far while others think that it does not go far enough. It seems to us to be about right at this stage.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend says that the document is at a general stage at the moment and that the Government want to put forward their general approach to it. There is one significant point in the document in the preamble, which refers to the member States being

determined to achieve a comprehensive and coherent common political approach and reaffirming their will to transform the whole complex of relations between their States into a European Union.
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government have no intention of allowing any such settlement to come in the final document?

Mr. Hurd: I shall come to that in a very short time. I quite understand my hon. Friend's concern.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend tell us when?

Mr. Hurd: In about five minutes if I am allowed to proceed. It is possible that agreement will be reached on a final text at Sunday's meeting. That is possible but by no means certain. We thought it right and necessary to hold the debate today so that the House can have an opportunity to express its views on the proposals as they stand before any decisions are taken upon them. If agreement is reached at the Foreign Ministers' meeting this weekend, the Presidency hopes to submit the document for approval at the next summit of the European Council on 28–29 June. However, the disagreements may be such as to prevent agreement at this stage. In that event there will be a delay.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so often so early in his speech. However, my intervention is important on procedural grounds. The right hon. Gentleman said that if there is an agreement, the agreed document, whatever it may turn out to be, will be submitted to the next Heads of Government meeting. I understand that that is not within the treaty and is not part of the EEC's formal constitutional arrangements. Is he now telling us that it will be done at the Heads of Government meeting and will not go through the normal, proper, treaty-constitutional channels of the Community to which this document clearly refers and is clearly relevant?

Mr. Hurd: This is not Community legislation. It is a political, not a legal, text. Therefore, it is fitting, if sufficient progress is made, and that is by no means assured, for it to go to the next summit of the European Council at the end of the month.
It seems inevitable and right that right hon. and hon. Members should want rigorously to examine the document with a keen eye for anything that might have an effect on the interests of the United Kingdom or the rights of the House. I do not think that anything in the document justifies the language in the Opposition's amendment. I hope that that will emerge as I go through it. I have noted, of course, the amendment tabled—it is not called, but I think that it is in order for me to refer to it—by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I shall try to deal with it when I reach the passage in my speech on the European Parliament.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will study carefully the views that are expressed this afternoon before he goes to the discussion that will take place during the weekend. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is concerned about the title referring to European union. The objective of European union derives from the preamble to the Treaty of Rome, which states that the Governments of the member States of the Community are determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe. This


commitment to European union has been reaffirmed at the summit conferences that have been held in Paris since 1972. It was reaffirmed in 1972, in the winter of 1974 and by the European Council in November 1976. It has thus been endorsed by both Conservative and Labour Governments. No precise definition of the meaning of "union" was laid down in the treaty and no one has attempted to do so subsequently. However, I shall set out the Government's view of what the term means.
In our view, "union" is not a commitment to a federal system or to the progressive erosion of national sovereignty. This is an important principle to grasp. In our view, "union" amounts to the development of an ever closer framework of co-operation between the sovereign States of the Community in all areas of their activity where this co-operation can be shown to be useful. European union will thus, in our view, be based on work already undertaken within the treaties and on political cooperation, which is concerned with co-ordinating foreign policy. It is not the creation of any new institution or increases in the formal powers of existing institutions.
The proposals that we are considering are intended by their authors as a further reaffirmation of the Community's commitment. The aim of the proposals is to achieve closer co-operation by a number of practical improvements in the way in which the institutions work and in the arrangements for co-operation outside the treaty. Neither the original nor the revised proposals that we are considering will involve treaty amendments or changes in the powers of institutions as laid down in the treaties. The Government emphasised the need for this principle to be clear from the outset, and that was accepted by our partners. For this reason—I come to one of the remaining points of difference—we have asked that the document be given a title other than "Act". This is one of the verbal problems that bedevil Community discussion. In English and under the British constitution the word "Act" is rather precise and means the culmination of our process of legislation. It is not the same in other countries where the word has a less precise meaning. We believe that there are other and better ways of describing a document of this sort. However, whatever title is chosen, there is no question of these proposals being encompassed within a legal instrument or having legislative force.

Mr. Douglas Jay: If this document, or something like it, is approved at the Heads of Government meeting, which is to take place outside the Treaty of Rome, am I right in thinking that the resulting decision will not be Community law?

Mr. Hurd: I confirm the right hon. Gentleman's assumption. I shall go through the document in some detail. It is a long document and not in all places exciting. That may have some effect on my speech. I do not think that I need refer to the preamble again.
The section headed "objectives" stresses the importance, within the framework of progress towards an ever closer union, of achieving increasing solidarity and joint action. In effect, the authors want to achieve this by making the decision-making procedures more efficient. They want to promote greater coherence and co-ordination and we agree with this plan. One of the most important paragraphs in the section—it is one that we proposed and which we consider to be important—is the reaffirmation that

respect for and maintenance of representative democracy and human rights in each member State are essential elements of membership of the European Communities".
The House has touched on this on several occasions over the years. It is useful and important to have it clear in this document.
The section on institutions begins by emphasising the need to increase co-ordination between existing structures and political co-operation. It makes it clear that each will continue to be based on existing arrangements.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I take the Minister back to ' objectives" and to a small reference that he missed in paragraph 1.4.2. to
certain economic aspects of security.
The right hon. Gentleman well knows that there is some feeling in the House on all sides that security should not be a matter for the European Community, and this seems to indicate a shill in that direction. Will the right hon. Gentleman please clarify?

Mr. Hurd: There is a blurred line about security and different definitions. The Commission has been chary of moving into this but there has been some agreement that where there is a clear link between the activity of the Communities under the treaties and political co-operation in security fields, it is reasonable to try to co-ordinate. That has happened from time to time but in a pretty cautious way. I do not think anyone will complain about the practical results to date.
I am talking now about the relationship between the community as such and political co-operation. There is no suggestion of a merger or an amalgamation of the two frameworks. None of the provisions in this section involves any increase in the powers of the institutions as laid down under the treaty.

Mr. Spearing: Yes, it does.

Mr. Hurd: Let the hon. Member make his case if he is called.
I do not believe that there is anything in this document which justifies fie argument that this is a step, in its present form, in the direction of federalism or supra-nationalism. The composition of the European Council—that is, Heads of State or Government. Foreign Ministers, the President and a member of the Commission—is reaffirmed, and so are its functions. This section also provides that the President of the Council will appear before the European Parliament at least once during each Presidency. The Prime Minister set an example here when she went to speak to the European Parliament during our presence.
The next section for Council and ministerial meetings has alternative texts, to which I would simply draw the attention of the House and say that we would be prepared to accept either text. The first one, providing for the Council to deal with both Community business and political co-operation, seems acceptable to us. It marks a tidying up of present procedures, but it is acceptable and would make those procedures more effective. No change of substance is intended in the way in which Community and political co-operation business is handled.
May I come now to what is perhaps, from the point of view of the House and Government, the most important section of the document—paragraph 2.2.3, dealing with decision taking. The House will recall, as I have already recalled, that our insistence on 18 May in the Agriculture


Council on the need for unanimity was set aside by a majority of our partners. Let me remind hon. Members briefly of the background. The Treaty of Rome laid down certain areas where decisions have to be taken by unanimity; and certain others where majority voting is to be the rule. Nothing that has happened, and nothing in this document, affects those articles of the treaty which require unanimity. They are in the treaty. No one has suggested that there should be anything other than unanimous voting on the matters covered by those articles. However, since the Luxembourg compromise in 1966, it has been the practice that decisions in other areas—those covered under the treaty by majority voting—are not taken by majority vote where a member State makes it clear that important national interests are involved. The Government have never been opposed to the proper use of majority voting where the treaties provide for it. Indeed, greater use of majority voting can help to speed up Community business in a way that can be useful. We attach importance to the safeguards that I have mentioned against the overriding of important national interests provided by the Luxembourg compromise. It was that safeguard that was wrongly overruled on 18 May, and that we would like to see restored.
In the text before us in square brackets the House will see that there are various alternative texts for Ministers to consider when they come to this matter on Sunday. A number of ideas have been put forward in addition to the familiar concepts of majority voting and the deferment of majority voting if an important national interest is involved. In considering these or any other texts the Government will be guided by their view that it is essential for members to be the judge of whether or not an important national interest is at stake, and that if they so judge then a vote should be deferred. Following what happened on 18 May, that needs to be clarified.
We shall therefore continue to work in this exercise—the Genscher-Colombo exercise—for a text that makes this clear. I am under no illusion. I do not think anyone in the House who has followed these matters will be; I do not think it will be at all easy. A number of States have never accepted the Luxembourg compromise. They have always made their objection to it clear, although for 16 years they allowed it to be the convention under which decisions were taken in those parts of the Community's work. Therefore, it has always been an agreement to disagree, and that makes it particularly difficult to put together again. It had not prevented it working as a procedure until last month, and it is how things work that matter to us.
The next section deals with political co-operation and emphasises the importance of the Community acting jointly in foreign policy matters. We have made a good deal of progress in this, not least under the British Presidency and as a result of the work of my noble Friend, Lord Carrington. The arrangements in this part of the document reflect the decisions taken in the London meeting over which he presided in October last year. This is an area which is less controversial in the House than some others, where we see the development and strengthening of political co-operation as being of real importance to this country and its influence in the world, and we wish to persevere with it.
I now turn to paragraphs 2.2.5, 2.2.6 and 2.2.7 which profvide for ministerial meetings on culture, justice and other areas. I must apologise to the House for the fact that this paragraph came late. It was left out of the original version of the text circulated by the Presidency, but it was circulated the day before yesterday to the House, and I hope that hon. Members who are interested have it. There is one point of difference here that we need to continue to argue. These sections provide either for the establishment of new councils or for occasional ministerial meetings where necessary. We see no need for the establishment of new Councils of Ministers for either culture or justice. Occasional ministerial meetings are a different matter. They happen; they can be useful. We have no objection to them, but we see no reason for formalising this by setting up these new suggested councils.
I come to section 2.3 of the document which deals with the European Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) raises in his amendment—and has raised already—a long-standing argument about the name of the body. As the hon. Member says correctly, the treaties use the term "Assembly". So do we in legal texts, such as the Act of the last Parliament which enabled direct elections, but "European Parliament" has become accepted in general usage in the Community and has often been used in the House and from this Bench.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Not by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend's memory is not entirely correct. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reported to the House on the Summit in London at the end of November she referred to a proposal concerning the European Parliament and discussed that body in those terms.
I repeat what I have said; it is frequently used as a description. My hon. Friend has raised a legitimate and important point. The point I want to make to him and to other hon. Members, particularly on the Opposition side of the House who reflect that argument, is that whatever name is used for this body, it carries no implication about any change in its powers. That argument cannot be sustained and, lest there is any doubt, we see no need for such changes.
The document provides for some improvement in the Parliament's relations with the Council and Commission, but does not involve, in suggesting that, any increases in its powers.

Mr. Spearing: Yes it does.

Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Member catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he can develop his case.
The Parliament's right to deliberate on all matters relating to the Community is reaffirmed. So is its right to submit written or oral questions to the Council and the Commission, as provided for in the treaties.
The text also provides for the Council to give reasons for departing from an opinion of the Parliament which is required under the treaties. We do not consider that the Council or the Foreign Ministers should be obliged to explain their reasons for not taking account of parliamentary resolutions which are not required under the treaties.
The Parliament is to be given the opportunity to make its views known, but not to be consulted, on the appointment of the President of the Commission.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My right hon. Friend skated over the words:
it must therefore have the corresponding participatory powers and review functions".
I thought I heard him say that it did not make provision for any new powers. What then do those words mean? How can he deny that that is endowing the Assembly with participatory powers and a review function that it has not already got?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is referring to a passage in square brackets that has not been agreed. I was explaining the view of the Government on the proposals as affecting the Parliament. If my hon. Friend looks at the earlier alternative passage in square brackets he will see that that reflects the view that we hold and shall argue. We do not believe that there is a case for increasing the formal powers of the Parliament—[Horn MEMBERS: "Accept the amendment."] No, because the amendment suggests that the document contains proposals which it does not contain. These are not such proposals. It is clear from the authors of the document that they do not intend to ask for any increased legal powers for the Parliament which would require an amendment of the treaties.

Mr. Jay: Supposing those powers were granted as suggested between the brackets, would there then be an alteration in the Community law?

Mr. Hurd: There is nothing in this document which is legislative. There are several points in it, which I am going through one by one, where there are proposals which the Government do not think are right and which they will continue to oppose.
There will be a parliamentary debate on the programme that the Commission presents after its appointment. We do not think that this debate should be regarded as one of investiture or of confidence.
The section also deals with the Parliament's role in the conclusion of the Community's international agreements. The treaties provide for the Parliament to be consulted over the conclusion of association agreements but not on accession treaties or trade agreements concluded under article 113. An informal practice has developed, however, under which the Parliament is informed on a confidential basis about the progress of negotiations on trade agreements. The text will propose to extend this practice to cover all the Community's important international agreements. We are prepared to accept this. It does not give the Parliament a right of consultation where it does not already have one under the treaties.

Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his point about the words "Parliament" and "Assembly"? It appears that the Government are skating over this as a matter of just one word or another. In the minds of many hon. Members, however, including myself who are for the idea of the European Community and the Common Market, the fact that that body has legislative powers is covered in the word "Parliament". The move that I see beginning is that we shall start surrendering more and more to this so-called Parliament. The word "Assembly" is important. Would he reconsider whether we call it an Assembly, as was agreed when we voted to go in, or whether we change the word to "Parliament", which I see as the thin end of the wedge?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that my hon. Friend can sustain the argument. Various democratic bodies

throughout the world have legislative powers; some are called Parliaments and some Assemblies. Speaking from memory, I think the title of the French parliament is "Assemblee Nationale"; it is called an Assembly. I repeat the assurance I have already given that whatever term is used to describe this body has no implications for its powers. In the explanatory memorandum we have simply used the term which is usually used inside the Community. But it does not have any implications about future powers. I have made clear our position about future powers.
Section 2.4 deals with the Commission and reaffirms its role as guardian of the treaties. It also refers to the desirability of making more frequent use of delegating powers to the Commission within the framework of the treaties. This would be under article 155 of the treaty. Successive Governments have always been prepared to consider delegation case by case—for example in responsibility for managing the regional development fund and in other similar matters, such as the supplementary measures introduced in October 1980 and under the May 1980 agreement.

Mr. Roger moate: Is my right hon. Friend saying that paragraph 2.4 is simply a repetition of the legal facts as they are today, and has no meaning apart from that, and that in no way does it give any new impetus to the powers of the Commission or to any further stages forward in European integration? If so, what is it there for? What does it mean? Anyone who reads it must see it as giving significant new impetus to the Commission.

Mr. Hurd: To some extent it sets out on paper changes in practice that have already occurred. In other cases it suggests a change in procedures. I have been through the points of procedure in detail. In neither case, whether declaratory or going forward, does it amount to a change in the legal powers under the treaty of the Parliament which could be achieved only through a change in the treaty. I think this is accepted. My hon. Friends who pursue this point should be aware that there is deep disappointment in many member States of the Community, and probably in the European Parliament as well, at the fact that these proposals have been so changed that they do not give the Parliament all that forward impetus for which it had hoped.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not a fact that the role of the Commission has been greatly reduced from what was envisaged when the treaty was originally signed and from what was when we acceded to it?

Mr. Hurd: What my hon. Friend says as to the way the role of the Commission has developed in practice is true.
Section 3 in regard to scope deals with activities within the framework of the Community's political co-operation and other areas outside the scope of the treaties and sets out the priorities for future work within the framework of the Community. Much of this will be familiar to the House because we have discussed it over many years as the proper priorities for Community policies. It is very important in the national interests that the Community develops its policies in sectors other than agriculture, as was agreed in the mandate guidelines following the agreement of 3C May 1980. Only in this way can the problem of unacceptable budgetary situations be resolved. So we welcome the emphasis on these developments in the text.
The text also emphasises the provision of the necessary resources to finance the Community's policies. On this point—this will disappoint some of my hon. Friends—I must maintain our position on the 1 per cent. VAT ceiling that acts as a brake on the unlimited expansion of Community expenditure. We have had to make it clear that the text cannot imply any automatic commitment to increase Community resources.
I have already dealt with political co-operation, and that is covered in further detail in section 3.2 of the document. That is an area of work among the Ten that has gone ahead fast—we believe usefully—and it is very much in the interests of this country that it should continue.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend say something about the strength of the European monetary system and the Government's view on it?

Mr. Hurd: I have nothing new to say to my hon. Friend on that point. As he knows, we are members of the system, but not of the exchange rate mechanism part of it. We have nothing against the exchange rate mechanism, but so far we have not judged the conditions right for this country to join. The reference to the European monetary system causes us no difficulty. Our position is clear and it is understood by our partners.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it will be difficult in future if we achieve successful highly developed foreign policy co-ordination and political co-operation but not enough co-ordination in working together, particularly in economic policy, within the Community? The Community will get out of balance if we do not attend to the internal material as well as the external.

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. We cannot regard the progress made on political co-operation as a substitute for solving the Community's problems. Because we have done reasonably well on the foreign policy side we cannot be satisfied with the whole. We must continue to tackle, as we are trying to do, the internal problems of the Community on which a great deal needs to be done.
I turn now to the approximation of laws. This is another well worn sphere in which the House has always been interested. It is dealt with in section 3.4 of the document. There have been several of what most of us regard as foolish proposals that gained much publicity. It is increasingly recognised that it is sensible and in the interests of this country—our industry in particular—to seek to reduce the non-tariff barriers to trade and bring technical standards together. We do not want trade constantly interrupted or reduced due to arguments about standards or non-tariff barriers. That principle is established in this part of the document and we support it.
The document also refers to the desirability of permitting approximation of laws in other areas outside the framework of the treaty. This section is worded in general terms and commits us to no more than approximation on a case-by-case basis where it seems to be desirable. This part of the text is for the most part acceptable, although we do not see what benefits could be achieved from an increased approximation of criminal law, given that there is a fundamental and continuing difference between our own and Continental legal systems.
I come now to the final provisions. The last section stresses the link between membership of the European Community and participation in all the activities described elsewhere in the document. Another outstanding point where agreement has not been reached is the proposal for a review of the document after five years to take stock of the progress achieved. Some member States would like this review to lead to a treaty on European union, but we, together with some member States, have made it clear that we are not prepared to accept a commitment to a future treaty. This is not a legislative document; it does not have a binding legal effect. We are not prepared to accept a post-dated commitment and say that even if no progress is made over the next five years we will nevertheless agree to a treaty at the end. That is not a sensible way of tackling the problem. We do not, therefore, agree to that commitment. We prefer the formulation. Progress towards European union should continue to be pragmatic and evolutionary, as I said at the beginning of my speech.
I emphasise that we welcome the initiative taken by the German and Italian Foreign Ministers last year in putting forward proposals for a new poitical impetus. We are in sympathy with the basic idea of bringing together the work that member States of the Ten do together inside and outside the framework of the treaties. We see merit in consolidating these proposals in a single text carrying the authority of the Heads of Government.
The original proposals contained a number of ideas that caused difficulties for us and for others. Many of those first ideas formed the first approach of right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition, and some of my hon. Friends. Many of those ideas have now been dropped or modified. We hope to secure acceptable texts on the remaining outstanding points.
I have emphasised the importance of the decision-taking part. This is crucial. Our partners are well aware that we need to be satisfied that in future there is a clear and accepted system for taking decisions in the Community.
Nothing in the text involves treaty amendment or will increase the powers of Community institutions. As the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) implied, it is a political, not a legal, text.
The Community remains a controversial but not stagnant institution. Its methods and policies develop like that of any other lively institution. It is natural and right that its members should from time to time look at the way in which it works and at changes in methods or procedure that have been taken or which, in their view, would be useful. That is what the document is about. There have been changes. The European Council has been established. There has been a steady growth in political cooperation. These changes have occurred piecemeal, step by step, since we joined. They are not controversial and it is useful to collate what has happened in a document of this kind and to have suggestions for future methods and procedure.
A great deal of work is needed before we reach agreement on the document. The passages in square brackets bear witness to that. I have stated the main changes that the British Government want to see in the text and the main choices that we would make among the alternatives listed in the text. However, we see the advantage of reaching agreement. It would be to this country's advantage to produce an acceptable document.
It is in that spirit that my right hon. Friend will continue with his discussions next week, and if necessary thereafter.
5 pm

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'declines to approve the Document containing the latest text of the German-Italian proposals on European Union which would confer additional supra-national powers on the institutions of the EEC and further infringe the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the powers of this House.'.
I have listened carefully to the Minister and he has undoubtedly done his best to put a good gloss on the situation, but later I shall return to many of the points that he made.
The Labour Party believes that these proposals are totally irrelevant to the needs of our country. Nevertheless, they are important because they contain serious dangers for the future of our sovereignty. The proposals are, of course, open to interpretation and I listened carefully to what the Minister said. It is our view that if the proposals were adopted, even in the modified form now before us—they are somewhat different from those contained in the original text by Herr Genscher and Senor Colombo—they would further weaken the powers of the this House and, therefore, the sovereignty of our country and exacerbate the problems that we already face. [HoN. MEMBERS: "How?"] They would strengthen the role and powers of the so-called European Parliament—powers that undoubtedly go beyond the Treaty of Rome—and, whatever the Minister says, would take us a giant step along the road to a federal Europe. We should also bear in mind the suggestion that these proposals should be reviewed in five years. Who can say that in five years time we shall not go a further step along the road to a federal Europe?

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heifer: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. When I last spoke on this subject I gave way a great deal, and I do not intend to do so today. I may perhaps give way once or twice, but no more.

Sir Anthony Meyer: rose—

Mr. Hefter: I am sorry, but I am not giving way.
As the Minister said, the objectives are clearly defined in the preamble. Let me repeat what it says. There is a
commitment to create a united Europe through the progressive construction of European Union".
There is no question of anyone trying to get away from that commitment, yet when the EEC was sold to the British people as an organisation that we ought to join, we were always told that it was purely an economic union.
The explanatory memorandum issued with this text glosses over some of the more important aspects of the proposals, just as the Minister did. For example, there is the question of security. It is true that the proposals in this document are somewhat watered down from the original text, but it is important to understand that they exist.
The European Community's background report issued on 14 June, only three days ago, states:
The most far reaching political innovation in the draft European Act is the inclusion of security matters within the scope of Community deliberations. The Rome Treaties make no reference to security and, hitherto the Community has been

content to leave it to discussion in other fora such as NATO or the Western European Union. The draft Act, however, proposes the co-ordination o f security policy and the adoption of common European positions in this sphere in order to safeguard Europe's independence, protect its vital interests and strengthen its security. For these discussions the Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers may convene in a different composition if there is need to deal with matters of common interest in more detail, so presumably, allowing for the sensitivities of non-NATO countries, such as Ireland.

Sir Anthony Meyer: rose—

Mr. Heffer: There is also a section entitled "The Approximation of Laws" which in effect means, as the Minister has accepted, the harmonisation of laws in most spheres. It does not only cover company laws, because in the text in square brackets—some of which we shall have to knock out—is criminal law. That could mean the acceptance of laws that are alien to our legal concepts and attitudes.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Surely the hon. Gentleman will now give way.

Mr. Heffer: The memorandum says that the effect on British law is nil. It is perfectly true that there is no immediate question of any change in British law, but if the terms of this document are accepted, even in their modified form, stage by stage—by harmonization—we shall find that over a time our laws will be changed. The section headed "Scope" sees the strengthening of the European monetary system
as a key element in progress towards Economic and Monetary Union and the creation of a European Monetary Fund".

Mr. Dykes: Hear, hear.

Mr. Heffer: The only thing that prevents me from going on is that time is limited, but I shall give one further example. It is suggested that there should be
a clause conferring on the Court of Justice appropriate powers … securing compliance with, and development of, Community law".
Yet the Minister comes to the House and tries to suggest that this will have not effect whatever on the laws of this country. That is not true. If these proposals are ultimately put into effect, they will have a very clear effect on the laws of this country. They are designed to bring everyone in the Community into line.

Mr. Keith Best: rose—

Sir Anthony Meyer: rose—

Mr. Heffer: If one takes the proposals as a whole, one can see just how much they are a step along the road to a more unified EEC, with greater powers to the Commission, the so-called European Parliament, the Heads of State and Ministers, the development of unified laws, a unified monetary system and much else, all of which add up to a real inroad into the rights and powers of the elected representatives of the people in their own countries, particularly here in Britain.
Let us look at the so-called European Parliament. The Commission's background report published only a few days ago, is more forthcoming on the extra powers it is likely to have than the Government's explanatory memorandum. It says:
Where the Institutions are concerned, the Heads of State and Government would 'reaffirm the central importance of the European Parliament' while the European Council would itself take on a more formal role than hitherto as 'the source of political


guidance of the European Community and of political cooperation'. Its Membership would be broadened to include Foreign Ministers as well as Heads of Government and State and the Council would report to Parliament every six months as well as submitting an annual report on progress towards European Union.
The Act would also stress the importance of the European Commission as the 'Guardian of the Treaties' and 'as a driving force in the process of European integration.' The Commission would have the acknowledged right to attend meetings of the Council.
Is it not clear that this is a first step towards a supranational Government with the European Assembly being transformed into a real Parliament with real powers, the Council of Ministers as the European council acting as an EEC cabinet, and in the end, majority voting becoming the general practice? That is what is involved in this document.

Sir Anthony Meyer: rose—

Mr. Heffer: This is one of the two times that I shall give way.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way so graciously. The right hon. Gentleman is making our flesh creep with the idea of an inexorable advance towards federalism, but does he still adhere to the view that European Socialists should have as their objective a united Socialist Europe; and that European problems can be solved on a European Socialist basis? What kind of institution would bring that about?

Mr. Heffer: If the hon. Gentleman had continued to read what I said in the article to which he is referring, he would have realised that I also said that under no cirmustances would it be in the Common Market. That is not the same thing.
With regard to foreign policy—I am sure that we all agree with this—no one can be against all European nations from time to time trying to reach agreement on foreign affairs. Such an approach was useful over the Falklands. However, the support given by some EEC countries was grudging, to say the least.
It would also be a good thing if the European nations could express their horror at what is happening in the Lebanon, and ask Israel to do something about that, such as getting out. The European powers can do something and no one is saying that they should not express an opinion. However, such agreements do not require the strengthening of the Community institutions or a move to a federal EEC.
It will no doubt be argued that no one should become too worried about these proposals because there have been plenty of proposals before, such as those in the Tindemans report on European union in 1975. That was followed by the report of the so-called three wise men, one of whom was a former right hon. Member of the House, Edmund Dell. It is interesting to note that many of the proposals in the report of the three wise men found their way into the Genscher-Colombo plan.
In a European Assembly debate of 18 June 1980 M. Tindemans said:
Are we perhaps in the process of building up a library of forgotten reports? If I was of the Mandarin class, I would propose writing a book entitled 'Remembrance of Past Reports', or perhaps publishing a dictionary of wasted 'European Ideas' .
I am sure that the experience of hon. Members is similar to mine. In politics I have found that if a group of active

people peddle their ideas long enough, and work assiduously enough, trying one route after another as each becomes blocked off, in the end they usually gain support for their ideas. The European union idea will be actively discussed by the Council of Ministers.
The explanatory memorandum says that the timetable is that the proposals will be discussed at the Foreign Ministers' meeting on 20 June in three days' time.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Does he agree that, apart from the dangers of this European union propaganda, it is shameful, and probably unknown to the vast majority of people, that it is being done by organisations supported with taxpayers' money from European funds and from British Government funds?

Mr. Heffer: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. An interesting report has come out of the Common Market today about some of the expenses and other perks of Members of the Assembly. One is not too happy about hearing such reports.

Mr. Best: rose—

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman has made some extremely rude remarks from a sedentary position, which have been most offensive. Under no circumstances will I give way to him.

Mr. Best: rose—

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Sit down.

Mr. Heffer: It has been said that if, on 20 June, agreement can be reached on the main outstanding points, which the Minister has said are in square brackets, they will be submitted for approval to the European Council meeting on 28 and 29 June. That is why it is important for the House today clearly to decline to give the proposals any support, and support the Opposition's amendment, which has been further developed by Conservative Members.
I accept that the original text, issued to us on 15 January, although it was issued much earlier, has been watered down. However, even if some of the proposals in square brackets were adopted, together with those not in square brackets, we should have gone a long way to further undermine the sovereignty of this House and therefore of our people.
The explanatory memorandum says that the Government are not prepared to accept a commitment to a future treaty. If that is so, they could have made that commitment clear by putting down a motion in similar terms to that tabled by the Opposition. One is entitled to ask the Government why they did not do so.
I note, again from the Commission's background report, that the European Democrats at the European Assembly, most of whom are the Conservatives, are on the side of the Genscher-Colombo plan. Does that mean that Conservative representatives are once again undermining the position of their Government, or is it that the Government are saying one thing here and another to their supporters over there? We have to know where we stand on that.
The issue of voting procedures is the most serious part of the immediate proposals, and is of great importance to us because of the recent events of 18 May, concerning the Luxembourg compromise. The Minister has been asked


the question that 1 was about to ask him. That is, will these discussions take place separately from a discussion on this document? He says that an attempt will be made to do so.

Mr. Hurd: It has been agreed.

Mr. Heifer: I am glad that it has been agreed because I had a horrible feeling, which I still have, that there is likely to be a linkage or a trade-off, a bit more of the horse trading that we have become accustomed to in the Common Market—"You agree to that and we agree to that". We could end up worse off than we are.
Whichever of the four options in square brackets was accepted, the Luxembourg compromise would be weakened, if not entirely killed off. I am glad that the Government have said that they would resist any proposals that would put us in that position.
I urge the House to make its position clear. However, we must see what happens in practice. Statements have been made here before and it has afterwards been discovered that the Government have weakened and given way. In the interests of our people, our sovereignty and the rights of the House, the position should be made clear today.
To my knowledge, a federal Europe has never been the objective even of those hon. Members who are pro-EEC. The concept of a total European union has been rejected, except by a handful of what I would call Euro-fanatics. Even pro-EEC Members have argued that they never wanted a federal Europe.
European co-operation is one thing. Efforts for wider unity via foreign policy are right and understandable. However, moves towards a more unified Europe are something else. Most hon. Members and people in Britain would reject it. We must be able to control as far as possible our destinies as a people and our destiny in the House.
We obviously require international co-operation and agreement. We need to work through the United Nations and the Commonwealth. However, we must safeguard our democracy and freedom. In my view, that can be better done outside the so-called European pact, as is proposed in the Genscher-Colombo plan. I ask the House to support the Opposition's amendment.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Before I call the first speaker, may I remind the House that this is a short debate and brief contributions are preferable today.
5.21 pm

Mr. Jim Spicer: This debate, centring as it does on the many proposals contained in the Genscher-Colombo plan, could, and probably should, be wide-ranging. However, you have asked us to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall focus my attention on the one area that seems to me of most importance to all hon. Members and that looms largest in the minds of most British people, namely, the problem that we now face against the background of the decision made by member States of the Community to break the Luxembourg compromise at the Council of Agriculture Ministers' meeting last month.
Throughout the negotiations for our entry into the Community, those in favour faced from every audience one major question which was put time and time

again—will this mean a loss of British sovereignty? I, and everyone else who was in favour of entry into the Community at that time, said "No". The 1966 Luxembourg compromise was not enshrined within Community law or the treaty, but accepted by every member State and reaffirmed again in 1971. At the time of our entry, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr, Rippon) was reassured on this point. The late Mr. Pompidou affirmed this fact, as did many others at that time. We negotiated and worked on the basis of that veto being enshrined to safeguard our vital national interests.
The time may well come—many hon. Members would prefer it to be sooner rather than later— when the Community can move towards majority voting, but that time is not now. When it comes, it must be as a result of evolution and of complete agreement by all member States. We certainly do not have that at the moment.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) pointed to the Government Benches when he said that there were some who were in favour of majority voting, implying that they were Conservative Members. I disagree entirely. There are few hon. Members who would accept majority voting now. In my view, they are confined mainly to the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party. They are in favour of that, as they are in many instances in favour of a move towards a federal state of Europe at an early date.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many of his colleagues—-who I believe, like him, are called European Democrats in the EEC Assembly—agree with majority voting? Does he?

Mr. Spicer: I certainly do not. I have already made that clear. When we debated this and voted on an amendment in the European Parliament only three weeks ago, 11 out of 63 members of our group voted in favour of such a motion and the rest either abstained or voted against. That is a fair indication that within the European Democratic group there is little support for a move to a system of majority voting. Certainly there is minimal support within our group; there may be more support within the Liberal group and the Socialist group of the European Parliament.
Those people who call for majority voting now do not reflect the view of the vast majority of people in Britain or in the House. If they persist in doing so, they bring down upon their heads and their party their deserts. In 1971, 1975 and 1976 it was said that the veto was there and it was accepted by everyone in good faith.
What has been wrong in the past has been abuse of the term "vital national interests". There is no doubt that we must tighten its definition to avoid such abuse. It is not the United Kingdom that has abused "vital national interest"; other countries have done so over trivial matters, and in so doing they have blocked the work of the Community.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Who is to be the arbiter, other than the national Government, of what is its national interest?

Mr. Spicer: I turn to what I consider to be the most important part of the Genscher-Colombo plan which enables me to deal with that question.
What should we now do to redefine the Luxembourg compromise? I accept that there must be a restatement of the Luxembourg compromise or an alternative. It should


be more closely defined. There were four choices in the Genscher-Colombo plan, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has already made quite clear. The first choice would mark an almost exact return to the Luxembourg compromise as it now stands. The second follows the same path but calls for such a view to be directly relevant to the subject under discussion. The third and fourth choices would be acceptable only to those who are in favour of majority voting now.
Our group in the European Parliament has discussed this. The vast majority of members within our group are in favour of the second choice, or something close to it, with additional safeguards built into it. It is my firmly held belief that any discussion on how the veto rights should be established for the future must centre around the second choice. However, one addition would reinforce the case for those declaring a vital national interest. At the end of the paragraph, instead of "confirmation in writing", it should read
confirmation and reasons in writing.
It should be incumbent upon member States declaring a national interest to give reasons for so doing.
We face the prospect of further hard bargaining on the common fisheries policy, our budget contributions which have to be decided by November, and before long we shall be into discussions on next year's agricultural price fixing. There can be no question of delay in making a firm decision on re-establishing some guarantee along the lines of the Luxembourg compromise. If we do not have guarantees the present public apathy towards the Community will turn to anger and hostility. I am sad to say it but that reaction would be understandable.
I have always been a supporter of our membership of the Community, and I shall continue to be so. However, I cannot accept the seeming inability of the Community of 10 member States, soon to be 12, to adapt itself to the circumstances of the 1980s. If it is not prepared to do so in the next two or three years, the Community will stumble from one crisis to another and will, in the eyes of many citizens, become increasingly irrelevant in an ever-changing world.
5.30 pm

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) is a much respected Member of the European Parliament.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Assembly.

Mr. Jenkins: I said "Parliament". It is nonsense to go over that argument again. If one wants to go back to the treaty one must go back to majority voting and the Luxembourg compromise. Do not let us say that nothing can evolve after the treaty. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) would put the initials MEP after his name and not MEA if he were a Member. Let us not continue with that foolish argument.
The hon. Member for Dorset, West began with an intransigent attitude to sovereignty, but he came to a sensible and practical conclusion about what one can do in present circumstances. I endorse his view about the Community evolving and dealing with the problems of the 1980s.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) painted a picture of a world which I found it almost

impossible to recognise. He said that all the arguments for joining the Common Market were put in terms of its being an economic community and that politics were an extraneous inclusion.
I have been involved in the arguments in favour of joining for as long and, in a sense, as prominently as anyone. I have always said, as have former Heads of Government such as the right hon. Members for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) that the politics of the matter were at least as important a reason for our entry as the economics. I am sure that the hon. Member for Walton knows that.
The hon. Member for Walton paints a picture of M. Tindemans and M. Thorn and others as being the Brussels equivalents of members of the Militant Tendency in Liverpool, working away and moving erratically towards getting their way in a headlong rush towards a federal Europe. That picture is immensely different from the one which I see.

Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Member for Walton practised a sparing economy in giving way. I shall give way to him, but not too frequently.
Everyone knows that, rightly or wrongly, fortunately or unfortunately, the federal idea in Europe has receded greatly in the past 10 to 15 years. I have never taken a doctrinaire position on that. I do not believe that we shall see a federal Europe in the sense of a federal United States. Europe will evolve into something which is found in no political textbook but which is suited to the special form of Europe, with deeply entrenched nationalisms, and old nations with great histories, but still anxious and finding it necessary to work together. It will not be federalism or confederalism according to a textbook definition.
Anyone who looks objectively at the picture as it has developed must believe that the danger is of Europe going too slow, not of Europe going too fast. The danger is of Europe failing to make progress and of gumming up the channels of decision making, not of a Europe rushing headlong in a federal direction or any other direction.

Mr. Heffer: I wish to put the record straight. On this occasion I did not have the Militant Tendency in mind. I had in mind the right hon. Gentleman and his friends who consistently undermined Labour Party policies and acted contrary to the Labour Party in the final decision.

Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that we need to pursue that fairly lighthearted analogy too far.
I regard these proposals as relatively modest and sensible. Without any great change in balance and without any amendment to the treaty they are an attempt to make European institutions work better. Do we want that to happen? The hon. Member for Walton and many others on the Opposition Benches do not want that to happen. The same is true of some Conservative Members. They want Europe to work worse to buttress the arguments for Britain coming out. That is certainly true of some Opposition Members. That is neither a constructive nor a responsible attitude. I do not think that we will come out, but some hon. Members never wanted to go in and would like us to come out. [Interruption.] I do not wish to be provoked. I wish to be brief.
The proposals are made by two extremely responsible major Governments in the Community who, on the whole,


have been good friends of Britain in past disputes. The Italians were certainly extremely good friends to us in the 1980 budgetary settlement. They were our best allies from that point of view.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Have we forgotten Mussolini and Hitler?

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman's approach to Europe seems to be that the Italy of today is the Italy of Mussolini and that the Germany of today is the Germany of Hitler. I do no know what the hon. Gentleman's idea of Socialist internationalism is—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman is hurling insults. He thinks that we should give more power to Community institutions. How does he think that that will make them work better?

Mr. Jenkins: I shall explain. The proposal is not to give more power, but to try to clear up some of the clogging in the decision-making process. The institutions worked more quickly and smoothly when 15 years ago the Commission had more power. Then the Council of Ministers took more responsibility for decisions, arriving at conclusions and seeing that they were implemented. I shall explain why it is in British interests, not in the interests of some abstract European—although there is nothing wrong with a little European idealism—that decisions should be taken firmly, clearly and expeditiously and that the institutions should work well.
Political co-operation is in the interests of Britain. It has been built up a great deal in the last few years. Lord Carrington played a major role in this respect and made a major contribution when he was Foreign Secretary. Political co-operation is a type of ship moored alongside the Community. It is sensible that its relationship with the Community should be made clearer and more sensible. The position has been nonsensical in the past. The French approached the idea of political co-operation cautiously. On one occasion they insisted on all the Ministers moving from Brussels to Copenhagen in order to have one meeting immediately following another to make clear the distinction between the Council of Ministers meeting as a council and the Foreign Ministers, the same people, meeting in political co-operation. I am sure that the House is against such a nonsense because it gives the Community a bad name.
Therefore, what has happened is thoroughly sensible. The proposals relating to the Parliament are also sensible. They involve no major change of powers and include nothing that would affect the treaty. The Minister was sensible in what he said but a little lukewarm and a little defensive. It is essential that the Government should realise how important it is to achieve a better working Community if we are to solve Britain's relationship with it and our underlying budget problems.
What is the nature of that problem? It is that the Community is a lopsided Community. Agriculture accounts for little more than 8 to 12 per cent. of the wealth of the Community yet 60 per cent. of the budget—

Mr. Spearing: It will go up again.

Mr. Jenkins: —fortunately reduced from 75 per cent. but still high—there may be problems in the future—goes to agriculture. That is not, as many people would like to believe, because Europe subsidises its agriculture to a markedly different extent from either the United States or

Japan—the other major industrial groups. The preponderance in the Community budget is because the agricultural side of the Community has developed. Most of that expenditure is made through the Community while most other forms of expenditure are made through the national States—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Jenkins: I have given way a number of times, and we have been asked to be as brief as possible.
While the lopsidedness persists we shall always have to get special subventions—

Mr. Marlow: Scrap it.

Mr. Jenkins: We negotiated two financial arrangements. We asked for them to be renegotiated but we should have some idea of the proportions involved. In the budget dispute we are arguing about amounts of £150 million or at the most £200 million whereas the amount of trade at stake, our trade with the Community, is £30 billion.

Mr. Marlow: What about the balance of trade?

Mr. Jenkins: The balance of trade is satisfactory from our point of view. It has improved steadily, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to put 59 per cent. of our trade at risk—which is what it would be with the free trade countries around—that is an extremely dangerous and damaging thing to do.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Jenkins: If the hon. Gentleman will keep quiet, I shall proceed.

Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman has misrepresented me.

Mr. Jenkins: If the hon. Gentleman will keep quiet and will not interrupt me, I shall not misrepresent him. That is a perfectly fair bargain to which I am sure he will be extremely glad to agree.
While that is the postion we will always have to ask for and get, after long arguments, limited amounts, special subventions, in order to make the budgetary position tolerable. We have twice renegotiated. There was the 1980 arrangement which was followed by the short-term arrangement a few weeks ago. We shall have to get another in a year's time. So it will go on. That is always an exacerbating factor even though our case may be fair. It puts us in a weak position. It makes us appear to be a suppliant. The sums involved are relatively small and are regarded as extras on the bill. There is no doubt that it makes our influence and position weaker than it should be.
We have no alternative but to seek such special solutions while the imbalance persists but the British interest is overwhelmingly to deal with the root cause of the imbalance. That means dealing with the lopsidedness of the Community and having a Community that is not so overwhelmingly agricultural but which also develops substantially the regional fund, the social fund and energy saving—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Jay: rose—

Mr. Jenkins: I am in difficulty here. I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jay: If the imbalance is tackled by increasing the other forms of expenditure, we shall only increase the total expenditure of the Community and therefore, in the end, our total contribution.

Mr. Jenkins: The right hon. Gentleman knows—we have been in government together—that I have never been in favour of extravagant public expenditure. We cannot solve all the problems by throwing money at them. Social, industrial, and energy policy and industrial innovation can be carried out but will cost money. The case is not that we would spend more but, as with agriculture, that the balance should be shifted from national budgets to Community budgets.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman should listen for two minutes and then he can speak afterwards.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Jenkins: That can be done effectively only if two blades of the scissors are operated. We can try to get agricultural expenditure down, but it is a difficult task, as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) as just said. It can be reduced somewhat. Some of it can be put back on to national budgets, but the underlying problem will not be solved unless a more constructive and imaginative view is taken of other aspects of Community policy.
It is ridiculous that a Community that is 90 per cent. industrial and commercial should spend so much on agriculture and so little on other aspects. The way for Britain to deal with the problem is to approach it from that point of view, but in order to reach solutions we must have an evolving Community, not a static and totally conservative Community which cannot move in any direction.
In order to do that, while it is not practical, possible, and perhaps not desirable to get away from the veto power, we have to roll back its excessive use and the use of the phrase "vital national interest" when that interest is not involved at all. We have to improve the decision-making process and to restrict the use of the veto as much as we can or we shall have a Community that does not move forward. While that is the position, we shall have the fundamental British problem. The position is different for those who wish to leave the Community but to anyone who believes, as I do, that British interests, British jobs, British trade and British political influence involve staying in the Community, the essential and necessary approach is to take a forward-looking and imaginative view about building up other aspects of the Community's work.
That is the only way for us to get away from negotiating these subventions from year to year or from two years to two years. It is the only way that British influence will be fully deployed in the Community.
5.48 pm

Mr. Timothy Smith: Although this is not my maiden speech, it is my first speech as Member for Beaconsfield. I hope that the House will allow me to observe two of the conventions that are normally associated with a maiden speech.
I should like to start by paying tribute to my predecessor, the late Sir Ronald Bell. As I travelled around the constituency in the recent by-election I found many

electors who respected Sir Ronald Bell not only for his independent views but for the tremendous work that he did for his constituents. He was an assiduous constituency Member. His constituents respected him for his independent views. He was a great libertarian, who had a tremendous sense of the concept of nation, and I pay tribute to him.
I should also like to say a few words about my constituency, which is in a delightful part of Buckinghamshire. Many people go there to live because it is a charming and delightful environment. As Member for the Beaconsfield constituency, I hope that I shall be able to protect the interests of the constituency and defend it against the attacks that it will inevitably come under from various environmental intrusions such as aircraft noise and gravel extraction.
One of the underlying themes of the recent by-election in Beaconsfield was Britain's role in the Common Market. The Falklands crisis raised difficult questions in people's minds about Britain's role in the world. One thing became clear to me, and it was that now only a vocal minority questions Britain's membership of the European Community as such. I was interested to see a recent report—I think in the Financial Times— that the TUC campaign for withdrawal from the EEC has had an apathetic response from most of the unions which were called upon to make constructive proposals about what Britain might do were it to withdraw. The most positive response to the TUC's request for helpful comments came from its own steel committee, which said that its members saw no realistic alternative to membership of the Common Market. It said that the present relationship between the United Kingdom and other EEC members should be maintained. We never hear precisely what the Labour Party, the TUC and others who propose that we should leave think we should do if we left.
Recent events have highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of the European Community. On the plus side, we have the positive support that we have received from most of our partners in the Common Market during the Falklands crisis. There is no doubt that, had we not been members, we should not have received their support, and our job in the South Atlantic would have been that much more difficult. Also on the plus side, I pay tribute to the recent British Presidency, which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned in his speech, and to the work of my noble Friend Lord Carrington at that time.
On the minus side, we have had the majority decision on farm prices. This is a difficult question and it is one to which this document addresses itself. However, I do not understand why the Opposition are making so much of this document. It is a modest document. It does not propose any changes in the treaties, or any changes in our legal relationship with the rest of the Community. It is a political document, and its object is simply to give the development of the Community some further impetus. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the object is to ensure that that development is both pragmatic and evolutionary. That is the Government's objective, and I support it.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that the entire document is irrelevant. He thinks, I suppose, that the Community's objective of an overall economic strategy to combat unemployment and inflation is irrelevant, and that the priority which is to be given to encourage productive investment and improve competitiveness as a basis for creating durable jobs is also


irrelevant. In my opinion, those proposals in the document are relevant, not just to Britain but to the rest of the Community.
Three major questions will have to be resolved if we are to make further progress towards European co-operation. First, there is the budget, about which the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) spoke. Secondly, there is Britain's budget contribution. Thirdly, there is the Luxembourg compromise. In my opinion, all three are connected, because it would be difficult to make progress on the budget if we could not first make progress on the Luxembourg compromise.
Farm prices would perhaps not loom so large if we were in a position to deal with the difficult problems of the budget and the fact that the whole budget is dominated by the CAP. The object in the budget must be to agree arrangements which place less emphasis on agriculture and more on industrial and regional policies, and thus design something which constitutes a fairer reflection of the needs and aspirations of all members of the Community.

Mr. Barry Porter: I apologise if the speech of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) is meant to be a maiden speech, but in my opinion it is a retread, and I have taken advice in that connection. It is some 10 years since we entered the Community, and those of us who are enthusiastic about European unity had that query about the amount of the budget that was spent on agriculture. We had the same argument 10 years ago, and everyone said that it had to be changed. However, nothing has happened during the past 10 years. Perhaps my hon. Friend would address himself to what might happen, not 10 years hence, but next year or next month.

Mr. Smith: I said that I hope that progress will be made. I hope that I shall not be standing here in 10 years' time saying exactly the same thing. I feel frustrated that we have not made the progress that I should have liked, but that is not a reason for suggesting that we should do nothing about the problem, or ignore it. It will not go away, and we must address ourselves to it.
We must also address ourselves to the United Kingdom budget contribution. We need some permanent agreement as soon as possible. That agreement should be based, not on an attempt to relate our contributions to what we get out of the Community, but on the ability of each of the Community members to contribute. On that basis, it is quite wrong that Britain, which is not one of the richest members, should pay one of the largest contributions, as it does at present. Only if we can resolve these two questions satisfactorily are we likely to make any real progress on political co-operation and towards European union.
The immediate objective in this respect must be to reinstate the Luxembourg compromise. I support the Government's position here, as outlined by the Minister. If it was right for six members in 1966, it must be right for 10 members in 1982. We should recognise that when Britain joined the Community in 1972 this was an important element in the arrangements which were taken into account at that time.
On 24 May 1971, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) told the House that he and President Pompidou
were in agreement that the maintenance and strengthening of the fabric of co-operation in such a Community requires that

decisions in practice should be taken by unanimous agreement when vital national interests of any one or more members are at stake."—[Official Report, 24 May 1971; Vol. 818, c. 32.]
That is quite correct. While that should remain the constitutional convention, the longer-term objective should be to ensure that such economic harmonisation is achieved that member States perceive their vital national interests to be at stake. That is more likely to come about if we can achieve economic co-operation and harmonisation.
In the long run, our objective should be majority voting, except where vital national interests are involved. I agree that member States should continue to determine what their vital national interests are. I also agree that that right should not be abused. The political reality is that the legal framework of the European Communities will not function unless the political reality on which it is based is respected. That political reality is that the Community is an association of sovereign nations, on none of which can decisions affecting their vital national interest be imposed.
In the Financial Times last Friday, Malcolm Rutherford asked:
Will Britain react to the Argentine invasion and its aftermath by becoming more nationalist or will it draw the quite different conclusion that it is necessary to strengthen international alliances and international order?
One has only to pose that question to realise the answer. International order and international alliances must be strengthened, and in my view the first international alliance that we must strengthen is the European Community.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the normal courtesy in the House that when a right hon. or hon. Member has spoken he remains in the Chamber until the hon. Member who speaks after him has finished his speech? Is it not a grave discourtesy that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) left in the middle of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. (Mr. Smith)?

Sir Anthony Meyer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has been absent for most of the debate, except when he has been acting like a hooligan on the terraces—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us leave that matter. It will only waste tune to pursue it.
6 pm

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I welcome back the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). He is joining a select club of hon. Members who have had the privilege of representing two or more constituencies in this House. If I recall circumstances correctly, the result of the remarkable by-election in which he participated—it has been played down by some commentators—had something to do with the Common Market. I can concur with his comments on the Common Market in regard to his tribute to his predecessor, Sir Ronald Bell. I disagreed with Sir Ronald on many issues but, happily, we cooperated on issues pertaining to the Common Market. I thought that he was right. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield appears not to be quite so right. Indeed, he may be wrong.
I should like to take issue with the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) whose absence I also


deplore, as one of the duties of hon. Members is to debate and listen to opposite points of view. The right hon. Gentleman did not favour us with his view of the document. He made an interesting speech but did not refer to the point at issue. He said that he envisaged Europe evolving, not into a federal State such as the United States but into something unique and European. He knows that the Treaty of Rome is a unitary document and the superstate there foreseen is unitary, not federal. That is the right hon. Gentleman's view as far as I understand it. He did not tell us what he thought about the document. We can only assume that he concurs with it. He said that it would enable the evolution to proceed a little quicker, enable Britain to get from Europe what is its due and enable institutions to work more closely. He forgot to say that any enlargement of the Community budget means less power to the House, because more money would go to Brussels and less would come here.
The right hon. Gentleman advocated a reduction in the use of the Luxembourg arrangement although the "Yes" pamphlet that he supported at the referendum said:
All decisions of any importance must be agreed by every member.
The pamphlet also said:
The position of the Queen is not affected.
Of course Her Majesty's role is affected because until 1973 legislation came only from the Houses of Parliament, through Her Majesty. Now it comes direct from Brussels, not through Westminster or Buckingham Palace. It is directed by Her Majesty's courts although Her Majesty has had nothing to do with the legislation there administered. The right hon. Gentleman must explain some matters. Some of his argument is illogical.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield dismissed the document as simply giving more impetus to the Community. Impetus to where and for what purpose? To many of us, the document is clearly trying to produce a movement towards a unitary superstate in Europe without there being any formal changes to the treaties. Every point at issue here is to give greater practical competence to the institutions and personalities of the EEC and, therefore, by definition, less choice and competence to Her Majesty's Ministers, the House and the electorate.
The Minister shakes his head. I shall gladly give way if he wishes to contest that point. If one gives more power, influence and opportunity to some people, one must take them away from someone else. That means taking them away from Whitehall, Her Majesty's Ministers, the House and the British people. No Conservative Member who has advocated acceptance of the document has produced any evidence to the contrary.
Perhaps there will be no legal change, just as we do not have to amend the Parliament Act to determine the powers and influence of Government and Opposition. If we change the standing order to do away with Supply days, the power of Parliament vis-a-vis the Government and of Back Benchers would be seriously reduced at a stroke. The same can be done to procedures of the Community without changing the treaties. That is what the document does time and again.
The Minister referred to the document carrying the authority of Heads of State in the future. In the early days of Britain's membership there was no Council of Ministers in the sense of the summit and the Heads of State. It is still

an extra-treaty body. Yet by examining the document and trying to sort out other matters, one sees that it has effectively become an extremely important meeting. That is an example of the way in which influence and power can move without there being any formal change of treaty powers. We know that power in the House can move in that way.
The same applies to the powers of the EEC Assembly. I dissented from a sedentary position when the Minister suggested that the Assembly was not being given any more powers. Paragraph 2.3.2. of the explanatory memorandum states:
If Parliament asks for a reply from the Council (from ministerial meetings) and from the Commission in keeping with their respective powers, to the resolutions giving an Opinion or a recommendation, the latter shall comply with this request.
In other words the document agreement specifically encourages the Assembly to make motions that are passed to the Council and requires the Council to reply. A dialogue will then result between the so-called elected Assembly or Parliament as some insist on calling it and the proto-Government. That is precisely what happened in this House in its relationship with the Crown. That is the way in which legislative elected bodies gain power over the executive. I challenge the Minister to say that he believes that the document will not effectively give the Assembly greater power. As far as I am aware there is nothing that will make the Council comply with any approach from the Assembly in the way that is advocated by the document.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He talks about the powers of Ministers being reduced as a result of Britain's membership of the Community. Perhaps he does not live in the same world as I do. How much power does he think that Ministers would have in respect of, say, GATT negotiations if Britain were not a member of the Community?

Mr. Spearing: I shall give the example of fishing. Only about an hour ago we saw the abject spectacle of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food saying that he would try to get the best arrangement that he could. We know that those who went into the Community on the present arrangement have achieved no protection for fisheries. The Minister has no power. He protected himself as well as he could by saying that he would present the House with nothing of which the industry does not approve. We all know that the industry must accept the best deal that it believes that the Minister can get. It will not necessarily be good. He even said that he would discuss matters of detail with the industry. He is not able to discuss it with the House. That is just one example of how a Minister is entirely in the hands of the rest of the Council and other members of the Community on a vitally important issue.

Mr. Deakins: The Minister said in opening that the aspect of paragraph 2.3.2 to which he took exeption, and to which I also take exeption, is that it imposes an obligation on the Council to give replies to the Assembly, which must be an accretion to the powers of the Assembly compared with the present position. The Minister said that that was not Government policy. As both alternative versions in paragraph 2.3.2 contain the same phrase, however, if the Government wish things to be otherwise, they must submit their own version.

Mr. Spearing: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. His intervention brings me to my next point.
It is no use the Minister telling us that the Government do not like this, that or the other provision of the draft proposal, because we do not know how it will turn out. We know that the Minister cannot entirely determine what we shall get in a couple of months. Some new Luxembourg arrangement will have to be negotiated. Everyone wants that, and the Community may also want it, but it will be difficult to negotiate even that as a separate discussion from that relative to this document. There may be no formal linkage, but the mere fact that the Luxembourg arrangement is dealt with in the document makes that inescapable. Moreover, we all know that because these matters go together the Government will have to give way on certain aspects of the document if they wish to maintain the position as best they can with regard to the Luxembourg arrangement.
In the document, the Luxembourg arrangement is left wide open. There are four options, ranging from reversion to neat or treaty procedure to something described as postponement of the vote. We do not even know whether that means leaving the matter on the table indefinitely or simply postponement until the next meeting. The original Luxembourg communiqué, to which reference has already been made, did not even refer to unanimity. It merely said that the parties would endeavour to reach agreement as soon as practically possible, so in this respect there is no protection even under the original Luxembourg communiqué.
Britain will always be on the downhill side of the argument on almost any issue of significance in the EEC. The right hon. Member for Hillhead agreed, although it did not seem to worry him in 1975, that the imbalance on agriculture always put us on the receiving end of the argument. We shall always be a client State in respect of the EEC unless the CAP is changed—and we know that it will not be changed, because of the political position in France, Germany and Italy. There will always be a budget imbalance. The Prime Minister or the Chancellor will always be going back to Brussels to renew the annual lease of the repayments and be told how much is involved and how it will be spent.
In those respects, Britain will always be a client State and we cannot easily change the Community in a direction that would suit us because the Luxembourg veto protects the interests of the other nations. Therefore, to say that strengthening the institutions or tidying up the procedures on the lines suggested in the document will help us in the EEC is not correct. Indeed, the reverse is true. It will make our negotiating weakness even more difficult to overcome.
The aims of political union on a unitary basis will receive a shot in the arm from this document. The formal means to amend the treaties may be avoided, but the effect of the proposals is to seek EEC approval and to show that we agree with the arrangements. The Minister says that they have evolved over time, but some are already happening and that others .are proposed, but we are now being asked to endorse both stages in a far more formal way then we were asked to endorse the Luxembourg arrangement. If that arrangement can become as important as it has without any document or agreement, simply through a vague communiqué and through practice, how much more important will the entrenched arrangement be if any Government assent to the proposals before us.?
The proposals clearly prejudice the powers of this House. By that definition, they prejudice the powers of any British Government and, most important, the sovereignty of the. United Kingdom and the power of the British people to decide for themselves matters which are properly theirs to decide.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Those of us who are regular attenders of European debates feel a great loss in not having the presence of the late Sir Ronald Bell. I am sure, however, that if he is in a position to be aware of what is happening here today, although he may have reservations about some of the sentiments expressed by the new hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), he will be proud and delighted at the eloquence and concern shown in his successor's excellent speech.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), in a good, clear and basically honest speech, spotlighted the basic issue between the two groups in the House today. He accepts that there is a real, permanent problem for Britain in the Common Market because of the budget imbalance, that the agriculture policy inevitably means that we have to go back every year or every few years to ask for a better deal, and that we shall always get a bad budget deal so long as the CAP remains. We all know that. We know that the CAP is nonsense and that the consequences for Britain are high food prices and high budget contributions. The question is how we can solve that problem.
The right hon. Member for Hillhead and those who believe in the sentiments expressed in the document before us say that the answer is to create more and different types of common policy. For instance, there might be such a policy for cars whereby we could all produce as many cars as we liked and sell them at a very high price, those that could not be sold being disposed of to the Russians at a very low price. Such a scheme would mean that more cash would come to Britain. I believe, however, that sensible people would say that if the basic problem of the Common Market is a nonsensical CAP, the right approach must be to scrap it—to suggest to our partners that we should all look after our own agriculture and get rid of this monstrosity which not only creates a serious budget imbalance but involves horrendous expenditure and does great damage to underdeveloped countries.
The basic divide in the House is thus between those who see the answer to Europe's problems as further movement towards European union, federalism, or whatever one calls it, and those who advocate a different approach. I find it difficult to understand why the Government believe that Parliament should offer no opinion on a European document which sets out a pattern for the creation of an integrated union from the present Common Market in place of the association of sovereign nation States that I had always believed to be the Conservative Party's concept of the EEC.
As the Minister implied in his delightful and courteous speech, it might be possible to regard the German and Italian proposals as lofty but basically meaningless words which will achieve nothing in practice in terms of changing powers but which will do no harm. It would be quite wrong, however, for Parliament to agree even to lofty but meaningless sentiments if they do not conform with the views of Parliament and of the British people.
A good example of this is contained in paragraph 3.1.8 which calls for the establishment of a European industrial strategy to create productive jobs. So long as the nation States retain their freedom to elect Governments committed to either interventionist Socialist or noninterventionist Conservative Governments, this paragraph is either a meaningless form of words or designed to pave the way towards supranational economic policies.
Apart from those general sentiments, it would be wrong for us to offer no comment on a plan that envisages greater union and a European identity when there appear to be overwhelming arguments for Britain investigating a looser and less binding relationship with the Common Market. The total failure of the EEC in recent times to reform its obvious absurdities, some of which greatly damage us, demonstrates that we must either accept the present structure of the Common Market or seek a relationship that is materially different from the present full membership. Alternatively, we should be using our many bargaining assets, such as our consumption of food, our supply of oil, and our negative balance of payments of trade in manufactures, to press for major structural reforms.
The economic case for our membership that was widely supported at the time of our joining the Community, and certainly at the time of the referendum, has been eroded simply by experience. More recently, those who claimed that Britain was a member for political and not economic reasons have had their illusions shattered by the manner in which, for example, the Common Market dealt with sanctions against Argentina. The attitude of other Common Market members compared unfavourably with that of our traditional friends such as New Zealand, which gave unrestricted support without seeking any price. Many people who had no strong views on the Common Market were surprised that when British territory was invaded by a foreign Fascist aggressor we found our European partners insisting that sanctions should exclude all continuing contracts—a major slice of the trade—and should be approved in weekly or two-weekly bursts at the last moment until higher farm prices were obtained.
That is not the sort of European unity that some people envisage and certainly not the political co-operation that many people believe exists in the Common Market. Nor can we offer no opinion on a plan that gives greater powers of consultation and supervision to the European Assembly. Without being unfair, we all know that the financial excesses of this rather absurd body, whose elections two-thirds of the voters boycotted, have given democracy a bad name. It would be wrong to judge the Assembly solely on one or two stories of how money is wasted, but most people are beginning to doubt whether it serves any useful purpose. I believe that if it disappeared tomorrow, no one would notice.
We should seriously consider whether the Assembly should be wound up instead of giving it more silly powers of consultation when in practice it has none. The document sets out a path that is exactly the opposite of the one that we should choose in our interests. The official Opposition amendment does not go as far as I believe it should, but it sets out what I believe Conservative policy was or should be.
For those reasons, having confined my speech to five and a half minutes so that others may speak, I shall be voting for the Opposition amendment. I believe that every Conservative Member should do the same.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the winding-up speeches will begin at ten minutes to seven. If other hon. Members follow the excellent example of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), many more hon. Members will be able to speak.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I share the suspicions of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) about the document before us, despite the reassurance in the Minister's opening speech, which went much further than previous ministerial statements on the attitude to federalism and the European union. We are merely being invited to take note of this document—if, as one assumes, the Opposition amendment is defeated. We are not being asked to approve the document, and I wonder why. After all, this is not the normal "take note" motion that we have on European Community debates when we may be discussing lorry weights or fishing. There is a major constitutional matter in the document before us.
What is the Government's authority for committing Britain to the document, either in its present or a suitably amended form, in the next few weeks? It will not receive parliamentary approval because we are simply being invited to take note of it. It will certainly not have the approval of the British people. In 1967, the White Paper on the legal and constitutional implications of joining the EEC made it clear that the implications did not include a European union. There was no mention of a European union in the 1971 White Paper, paragraph 29 of which stated that there was no question of
erosion of essential national sovereignty
and referred to sovereign States. The impression given to the British people then and in the European Communities Act debates in 1972 by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)—who said that the constitutional position had not changed since 1967—up to and including the referendum, and in the documents issued by the "Yes" campaign and by the Government, also asking the people to vote "Yes", was that European union was not on the cards.
Where is the basis of popular support for going ahead with the proposition, even if amended? There is no parliamentary approval and there had been no popular approval either in elections or in referendums. Will the document be put through under article 235 of the Treaty of Rome or article 236? The Minister did not deal with that question.
The Minister said that this was a European Act but that the Government did not like the wording. I am asking him to define not what the document will be called—no doubt the legal department of the Foreign Office will have advised him—but the precise constitutional status within the EEC of the document, suitably amended and perhaps retitled, that we are currently considering. All that we are told by the Minister is that it will not have the force of law and that there are no legal implications. However, there are profound constitutional implications.
Many hon. Members have asked about the provision of the European Assembly or so-called Parliament. The point


about "Assembly" as against "Parliament" is not simply semantics, because the word "Parliament" conjures up an image of our Parliament and people who will invest it automatically with the sort of powers that they know their parliaments and similar bodies to have in the democratic world. There has been a major change. It is not just a change of words and it is wrong for the Minister to be disingenuous and to say "What's in a word? Parliament means the same thing as Assembly". Technically, it does not mean the same thing and in this document the Assembly will be given extra powers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, unless the Government put their foot down. The Minister said that he was opposed to making the council responsible to the Assembly and I hope that he will stick to that, but the Government have not yet proposed alternative wording for the House to consider.
I also take issue with the Minister who signed the explanatory memorandum on the document, which many hon. Members will have read without labouring through the detail of the document. The purpose of that memorandum is to imply that there is nothing to worry about in the so-called European Act. However, since we have been a member of the Community, we are aware of the notion of creeping competence, whereby institutions invested with powers gradually take on more and more powers without having to redefine or reword the original treaties of the Community.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Give an example.

Mr. Deakins: This document refers to the fact that in future the status of Council meetings in dealing with European Community business under the basic treaties shall be formalised. Instead of having a formal Council dealing with EEC legislation and a Council of Ministers meeting in political co-operation outside the basic treaties, there is now a positive suggestion—we do not know how the Government will react as we were not told by the Minister—that there is to be a formal Council procedure for dealing with political co-operation and many other matters. We need to know more about that before we can give approval to the document.
What is to be the constitutional status of the new formal councils as compared to the existing formal councils set up under the appropriate provisions of the Treaty of Rome and the other basic treaties? If the formal councils are merely to be examples of practical co-operation—no one can object to that while we are in the Community—why is there any need to formalise their status? They work perfectly well at present.
Under this document the European Assembly is being given extra powers. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the Government will strongly resist any further accretion of powers to the European Assembly either inside or outside the basic treaty.

Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I should like to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). They are perhaps somewhat stronger than those of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) as I regard my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield as a powerful addition to the pro-European force in this House.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, I have been rather worried about the status of the

document. I was glad to hear from the powerful speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office that the word "Act" is not a suitable title. An act in French has nothing to do with statute. An acte gratuit is a useless gesture. Hon. Members might like to contemplate the significance of that translation. It would make my right hon. Friend's submission more powerful if he were to suggest a proper title for the document. There is nothing in the document to suggest what the correct translation should be.
The words, as we know from the rumbling argument about "Parliament" and "Assembly" that reverberates around this Chamber, show how sensitive the Foreign Office should be to translation. We had a bad example the other day in a different statute in which the French word "domicile" was translated "domicile". The Government insisted on retaining the mistranslation up to and including the Royal Assent. One of the lessons to be learnt is that these fauz amis, the direct translations, are enormously dangerous. The word "parlement" is quite different from the word "Parliament" and the word "Act" is different from its French equivalent.
We are assured by my right hon. Friend that this is not a legislative document or legal instrument. He repeated that and I accept it from him. It is his thesis that. where the document appears to make alterations, they are mere alterations in procedure and every Assembly, Parliament or machine—whatever one Likes to call it—is generally master of its own procedure. Some of the alterations seem important. I do not object to them. A new form of question time is to be instituted under which the European Parliament will have the power to question the Council both in writing and orally. Presumably that will include the power to put supplementary questions to the Council. I should like to be a fly on the wall at the first of such encounters to see how they go. All that, however, is within the competence of the EEC as the treaties are constituted. It is misconceived to regard that as new legislation.
I should like my right hon. Friend to reassure me about a matter included in the addendum. Paragraph 2.5 appears to extend the power of the European Court of Justice. At present the powers of the European Court of Justice are carefully confined and defined by the treaties. When I was an MEP it was a matter of great debate whether the Court of Justice, without an amendment to the treaties, had the power to sit in two or more divisions or whether it had always to sit as a full court. A small matter of procedure like that merely requires an amendment to the treaty.
As I understand paragraph 2.5, the Court of Justice is being given some additional jurisdiction. I do not know what that additional jurisdiction is. Presumably it is to allow the court to decide some matter that it does not now have the power to decide. What would be the point of paragraph 2.5 if the court already had that power? I quote:
The Heads of State or Government agree to consider, on a case-by-case basis, bearing in mind the respective constitutional arrangements of their States, including international conventions between the Member States, (provided for by the Treaty of Rome) a clause conferring on the Court of Justice appropriate powers regarding the interpretation of texts.
That is obscure language, and it is difficult to know its purpose. A power is to be conferred upon the court that it does not have. That implies—I may be wrong about that—an alteration to the treaties, in the sense of conferring upon the Court of Justice a power which no


doubt it is probably important or desirable that it should have. That is difficult to do without any amendment to the treaties.
Perhaps that is a niggling lawyer's point. Apart from that, I welcome the document even though it is couched in terms that do not always fall happily on English ears. It gives the impetus to streamline procedures which have, as the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) rightly said, become clogged and need to be made more speedy and effective.
One cannot altogether dismiss the fear, or hope, as the case may be, that the document will have a binding effect. It may not have a purely legal effect, but we know from our discussions on the Canada Bill that the conventions are often as legally important as the substantive law. The Supreme Court of Canada so decided—not merely advised—by six judges to three in its great case on that subject. The whole point of the Luxembourg compromise is that it shall have a binding effect.
We joined this body on the understanding that it had a binding effect. We joined on the strength of the theory—I think that it was a correct one—that there are things in the Community that are binding outside the treaties. It is what is called the patrimony of the Community. It is a difficult legal concept for the British lawyer, but it is something that all new member States are obliged to accept. It is not only a treaty but a right to invoke the patrimony. If ever there were a part of the patrimony, it is the Luxembourg compromise, which is to be incorporated in some form in the document that we are discussing.
It is not right—I do not wish this personally—that the document should be dismissed as unimportant because it does not have legal effect in the strict technical sense. As a keen supporter of the Community, I welcome it because it will give the rights and obligations of member States a definite push in one direction. That is its intention. If it were not, why should we need to have it? Therefore, I do not think that there can be any pretence that it is of no consequence and merely a piece of foreigners' froth, a piece of sublime mysticism and nonsense, as Castlereagh once said. It will have a definite and, I hope, binding effect. Therefore, I hope that we shall get the crux of it, the repetition of the Luxembourg compromise, as strongly as we can in the direction that my right hon. Friend suggested.
I regard the third alternative to the proposals as totally inadequate. I accept the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) who as usual put his finger on the right solution, including the giving of reasons as well as confirmation in writing. I am sure that that is correct. We cannot get any more. We joined the organisation on the basis of the Luxembourg compromise. We cannot insist on more than that, but we should accept no less.

Mr. David Alton: Like the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Sir C. Fletcher-Cooke), I welcome the publication of the document. However, unlike him, I wish that the original proposals, which were submitted by Colombo-Genscher, had been accepted in their original form. If those proposals had been accepted, the document would have gone much further. Unlike the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), I do not

take the view that the joining of the EEC was "always regarded as an economic union". That was the expression he used. The Community has never been an attraction to me on that ground. However angry we might be with the common agricultural policy, wine lakes and butter mountains, the overriding vision of the European Community has always attracted me to membership of the Community. I am disappointed by the nitpicking and pedantic approach, and lack of vision, which is displayed by so many both inside and outside the Chamber. The lack of commitment to the Community over the past 10 years is one of the reasons why it has not succeeded to the extent that many of us wish.
Despite the anger and frustration that we may sometimes have about the workings of individual institutions within the Community, we must bear in mind that twice during the century young men and women have given their lives on front lines in Europe. That possibility is now out of the question for any two Western European democracies. That in itself surely speaks volumes for our membership of the Community. I prefer to argue about wine lakes and butter mountains than to see British men and women losing their lives again in world wars in Europe.
There are also more tangible benefits to be gained from membership of the Community. For example, trade with our European partners since we joined the Community has increased by 560 per cent. That is a remarkable achievement. The benefits that have accrued despite minimal commitment and involvement in the EEC, are seen by many British people to be great. They are disappointed when they hear others such as the hon. Member for Walton and his colleagues speaking about the need to withdraw from the Community.
The Leader of the Opposition wrote in an article in The Times in 1975, at the time of the referendum:
We accept, of course, the democratic verdict of the people.
That is no longer his position. It is no wonder that the public become cynical with politicians. They hear them say one thing one year and watch them do something else when they get their hands on some power, or when they have the opportunity of getting some power within their grasp.

Mr. Heffer: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that in the previous Labour Government I was a Minister of State and earning quite a lot of money. I resigned on a basic principle and allowed power to go out of my hands merely because I did not agree with what was happening in the Common Market.

Mr. Alton: I do not deny that, but the hon. Gentleman's resignation was not purely because of the European Community.

Mr. Hafer: It was.

Mr. Alton: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. That was not my understanding of his resignation. However, if I am wrong, I unreservedly withdraw what I said.
It is quite wrong that the Labour Party should seek to take Britain out of the Community when only a small percentage of the British people support that policy. During the lifetime of the previous Parliament only 29 per cent. of the electorate had supported Labour, yet they now have a policy to overturn the decision of about two-thirds of the British people who voted to retain membership of the Community. Many of us regard our commitment to the


Community as half-hearted and reluctant since we became a full member. It has been characterised by the nitpicking and pedantic approach to which I have referred.
The original Colombo-Genscher proposals referred to a weakening of the Luxembourg convention and, implicitly, the curse of the veto. Far too often we exercise purely nationalistic reasoning and talk far too much about individual sovereignty, therefore using, or threatening to use, our veto in a way that is not in the best interests of furthering the cause of European unity and co-operation. That is sad and unproductive.
Secondly, the original proposals suggested greater power for the European Parliament. Tonight, there have been those such as the hon. Member for Walton who talk about "so-called representatives" and other hon. Members have talked about "so-called assemblies" and "so-called parliaments". They are referring to bodies and people who have been democratically elected as a result of another democratic decision, taken in this place. That is how the Assembly was established. To talk about other democratically elected people as "so-called representatives" is gratuitous. I should like to see the powers of the Assembly extended and far greater co-operation with our European Community neighbours. That offers the best possible opportunity for peace within Europe and the world in the long term.
Thirdly, in the original document there was a reference to the way towards European union. It is a great disappointment that the Government have done so much today to hack-pedal from something to which Conservatives were committed during the lifetime of the Government led by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
The document in its present form is a skeleton of the original proposals. Discussions on a mountain have given birth to a mouse. There will be profound disappointment in the document. Liberals have always been committed to the Community. If others had listened to us we could have joined at its inception. We would have become leading members of the Community and would have played a major part in laying foundations for the future. Instead, we were Johnnies-come-lately.
There are five reforms that Liberals would like to see in the reform of the European Assembly's institutions: first of all, stronger powers for the European Parliament; secondly, more political co-operation; thirdly, closer economic integration; fourthly, the harmonisation of laws; fifthly, majority voting.
If such proposals were accepted, then the European Community would not be seen in the discredited light that it is today. People would see some point in going out and voting in European elections. It is time that this Parliament was committed to the furtherance and pursuance of European co-operation, and indeed long-term European unity.

Mr. Moate: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the business is to be concluded at 7 o'clock, or interrupted for private business on the direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means; and at 10 o'clock there will be a business motion moved to deal with other business. If business is to be interrupted, does that not mean that we could resume debate on this matter, which no one will deny is of the utmost importance, either at 10 o'clock or when the private business is concluded if that

occurs before 10 o'clock—or, indeed, after the other business is taken which will go on until 1 o'clock? I would be grateful for your guidance.
If it is not wished to debate the matter further, could we defer deciding the question at 7 o'clock so that we can continue with this debate on another occasion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Other things being equal, the hon. Gentleman is correct.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is the procedure for ensuring that a vote is either taken or deferred? How does the House act if it wishes to ensure that the vote is deferred?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The business will be interrupted at 7 o'clock unless a motion is moved before 7 o'clock.

Mr. Hurd: Everyone enjoyed listening to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), but it cannot have escaped notice that the hon. Member did not attempt to substantiate the Opposition amendment to this motion. The hon. Member talked of a giant step towards federalism, but he did not even attempt to argue that case in terms of the document before the House. He did not go through the document; he simply confined himself to some general observations. He was very reluctant to give way to anyone who questioned those general observations. He told us, for example, in terms of mounting horror, about the European Council. He read a passage from the document which said that the European Council brings together the Heath of State or Government, Foreign Ministers, the President, and members of the Commission, as if this were the giant step towards federalism. What does he think has been happening for years past? That is the European Council. Anyone who supposes that the European Council is a federalist institution should go and see the Heads of State and Government arguing fiercely about national interests.
Similarly, the hon. Member attempted to deal with security and he quoted from a document, which must be a background document put out by the Commission in London. This background document dealt with the original proposals of Genscher-Colombo and the passage on security that the hon. Genteman criticised does not appear on the document before us. That is in no way a sufficient substantiation, making general rhetorical remarks and then seeking evidence from documents that have clearly and obviously been amended since they were tabled.
The Opposition Front Bench really did not attempt to substantiate its case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) did a better job of that, but even he did not really attempt—except in rhetorical terms in what was a very clear speech—to substantiate the case that we are required to answer. The only points where an attempt was made to substantiate this case were during interruptions at the beginning of my speech and in the speeches of the hon.. Members for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) and Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) regarding the European Parliament. That is point 2.3, and it is important to get it right.
Under questioning during my speech I said that we preferred the first version of the introduction, which clearly does not deal with powers. It was suggested from


behind me that the second version, if accepted, might confer new powers, but paragraph 2.3.1, about which there is no dispute—it is not in square brackets—makes it perfectly clear that all of this is in accordance with the provisions and procedures laid down in the treaty. So that argument collapses.
Two Opposition Members dealt with paragraph 2.3.2 and suggested that the Parliament would now have the right to require comment or a reply from Ministers. I concede that. That is the only point that has been argued in defence of the suggestion that this is a step toward federalism. Ministers will not have to agree with the Parliament. They will not have to accept the Parliament's argument. They may simply say that they entirely disagree. They will be required to give some kind of comment or reply. That is the only point, and if that is the only specific point produced throughout this debate arguing that this is a giant step towards federalism, then the case does not exist.

Mr. Heffer: The Minister of State has made the Statement that the Opposition Front Bench did not outline the Opposition's real case. I hope that tomorrow morning the hon. Gentleman will read what I said, where I give example after example. I could have gone on giving examples, but because of the time factor and because I wanted all hon. Members to get in on the debate as far as possible, I sat down.

Mr. Hurd: The House will read the record and will judge, especially the reference of the hon. Member for Walton to a completely out-of-date document. We are discussing a political document, not a constitutional one. It is not a treaty. It is not a document with legal status. It does not change the powers of the institution.
The European union, in the sense in which I rather carefully defined it at the beginning, as the hon. Member recognised, is in the Treaty of Rome and has been accepted in that sense in the summit meetings of 1972, 1974 and 1976.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) gave a thoughtful and helpful analysis of the key points of decision taking. I am not sure that I agree with him that the second proposal would quite meet our needs, but I note what he said about it. We would greatly prefer the first. I am not sure that the second one as at present worded would really deal with the point we are trying to make.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir C. Fletcher-Cooke) raised a point that was in my speech but which, stupidly, I omitted because it seemed to me that I was going on for a long time. I refer to paragraph 2.5, on the European Court of Justice. The point here—and it certainly needs exposition—is that if a new international convention is being negotiated between member States, then under these proposals it would be possible to include in that convention a role of interpretation for the European Court. It would be an option open to the contracting parties to include that if they decided that it was appropriate and fitting. So it is an option the use of which would depend upon the decision at the time member States were negotiating a particular convention.
I would like to join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). We

were glad to have him with us before, and after listening to his speech, we are now even more glad that he has returned. I agreed with every word he said about our membership of the Community, the pluses and the minuses, and what we should try to achieve. I would underline a point that my hon. Friend made. It is difficult to imagine us getting the kind of immediate helpful reaction from the European States that we did over the Falklands if we had not been a member of the Community. If it had not been for our membership of the Community we would not have had the solidarity that was so effective.
The Community to which we belong has shifted away from federalism.

Mr. Roger Moate: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend when he has so little time left, but I am concerned for the convenience of the House. I would appreciate your further guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I rose earlier you did say that, all things being equal, my previous supposition was correct and that there would be an opportunity for the House to continue this debate later in the proceedings. I appreciate that the Chair is always reluctant to rule on hypothetical situations and it may well be that a motion will not be moved at 7 o'clock so that we could continue later.
Assuming that a motion is moved at 7 o'clock, will you, for the convenience of the House, indicate at what point during the proceedings this evening the debate could be resumed? I am particularly concerned about the alternatives that are available to the House. I appreciate your guidance on this matter because we have private business later which may well not run until 10 o'clock. That being so, would it then be open to the House to resume debate—

Mr. Walter Harrison: rose—

Mr. Moate;: I am speaking on a point of order.

Mr. Harrison: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
The House proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. Moate (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A point of order cannot interrupt a closure. I will listen to the hon. Member's point of order when this Division is complete.

Mr. Moate (seated and covered): On a serious matter, I was speaking on a point of order. As I understand it, the closure motion moved by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) was, in fact, itself a point of order. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was myself on my feet making a point of order. I submit to you that it is not permissible on a point of order to interrupt another point of order. I am therefore asking you to rule that the motion should not be accepted.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 290.

Division No. 227]
[7.05 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
 Anderson,Donald


Adams,Allen
Archer, Rt Hon Peter


Altken,Jonathan
 Ashley, Rt Hon Jack






Ashton,Joe
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
John,Brynmor


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Barnett,Guy(Greernwich)
Kilfedder, James A.


Barnett, Rt HonJoel (H'wd)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bennett,Andrew(St'kp'tN)
Lamborn, Harry


Bidwell,Sydney
Lamond, James


Body,Richard
Leighton, Ronald


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Bottomley,Rt HonA.(M'b'ro)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Litherland, Robert


Brown, R. C.(N'castle W)
Lofthouse,Geoffrey


Brown,Ron(E'burgh,Leith)
McElhone,Frank


Buchan,Norman
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n&amp;P)
McKelvey,William


Campbell,Ian
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McTaggart,Robert


Canavan, Dennis
McWilliam,John


Cant, R. B.
Marks,Kenneth


Carmichael,Neil
Marlow,Antony


Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stol S)
Marshall, DrEdmund (Goole)


Coleman,Donald
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Maxton,John


Cook, Robin F.
Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin


Cowans, Harry
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Mikardo,Ian


Crowther,Stan
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cryer, Bob
Mitchell,Austin(Grimsby)


Cunningham, DrJ. (W'h'n)
Moate, Roger


Dalyell,Tam
Molyneaux,James


Davidson,Arthur
Morris, Rt Hon A.(W'shawe)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Deakins,Eric
O'Neill,Martin


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dewar,Donald
Park, George


Dixon,Donald
Parker,John


Dobson,Frank
Parry,Robert


Dormand,Jack
Pendry,Tom


Douglas,Dick
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Dubs,Alfred
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Prescott,John


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Proctor, K. Harvey


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Race, Reg


Evans, John (Newton)
Radice, Giles


Ewing,Harry
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Faulds,Andrew
Richardson,Jo


Field, Frank
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Flannery,Martin
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Fletcher,Ted (Darlington)
Roberts,Gwilym (Cannock)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Ford, Ben
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Forrester,John
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Foster, Derek
Sever, John


Foulkes,George
Sheerman,Barry


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Fraser, J.(Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Shepherd,Richard


Freeson,Rt Hon Reginald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Garrett, John (NorwichS)
Silkin.Rt Hon J.(Deptford)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Golding,John
Silverman,Julius


Graham, Ted
Skinner,Dennis


Hamilton, W. W.(C'tral Fife)
Snape, Peter


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Soley, Clive


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Spearing,Nigel


Heffer, Eric S.
Spriggs,Leslie


Hogg, N.(EDunb't'nshire)
Stallard, A. W.


Holland,S.(L'b'th.Vauxh'll)
Stewart, Rt Hon D.(W Isles)


HomeRobertson,John
Stoddart, David


Homewood, William
Stott,Roger


Hooley,Frank
Straw,Jack


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Summerskill,HonDrShirley


Hoyle,Douglas
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Huckfield,Les
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Thorne,Sten(Preston South)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Tilley,John


Janner,HonGreville
Tinn,James





Torney,Tom
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Wainwright,E.(DearneV,)
Wilson, William (C'trySE)


Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Winnick,David


Watkins,David
Woodall,Alec


Weetch,Ken
Wright,Sheila


Welsh,Michael
Young, David (Bolton E)


White, Frank R.



White, J.(G'gow Pollok)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Whitehead,Phillip
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Whitlock,William
Mr. George Morton.


Willey,Rt Hon Frederick





NOES


Adley, Robert
Dorrell,Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton,Lord J.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dover,Denshore


Alton,David
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dunn, James A.


Ancram,Michael
Dunn,Robert (Dartford)


Arnold,Tom
Dykes, Hugh


Aspinwall,Jack
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Eggar,Tim


Alkins,Robert(PrestonN)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Emery, Sir Peter


Banks,Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Bendall, Vivian
Fell,Sir Anthony


Benyon,Thomas(A'don)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Benyon,W. (Buckingham)
Fisher,Sir Nigel


Best, Keith
Fletcher-Cooke,SirCharles


Bevan,David Gilroy
Fookes, Miss Janet


Biffen,Rt Hon John
Forman, Nigel


Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Blackburn,John
Fox,Marcus


Blaker, Peter
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Bonsor,SirNicholas
Freud,Clement


Boscawen,HonRobert
Gardiner,George(Reigate)


Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W)
Gardner, Edward (SFylde)


Bowden,Andrew
Garel-Jones,Tristan


Boyson,DrRhodes
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bradley,Tom
Ginsburg, David


Braine,SirBernard
Goodhart,SirPhilip


Bright,Graham
Goodhew,SirVictor


Brinton,Tim
Goodlad,Alastair


Brittan,Rt. Hon. Leon
Gorst,John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gow, Ian


Brotherton,Michael
Gower,SirRaymond


Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Browne,John(Winchester)
Gray, Hamish


Bruce-Gardyne,John
Greenway, Harry


Bryan, Sir Paul
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)


Budgen,Nick
Grist, Ian


Bulmer,Esmond
Grylls,Michael


Burden,SirFrederick
GummerJohnSelwyn


Butcher,John
Hamilton, Hon A.


Butler, Hon Adam
Hamilton,Michael(Salisbury)


Cadbury,Jocelyn
Hampson,Dr Keith


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hannam,John


Carlisle,Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst,Alan


Carlisle, Rt Hon M.(R'c'n)
Hastings,Stephen


Cartwright,John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hayhoe, Barney


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Chapman,Sydney
Heddle,John


Churchill,W.S.
Henderson,Barry


Clark, Sir W.(CroydonS)
Heseltine,Rt HonMichael


Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Hicks, Robert


Clegg,Sir Walter
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cockeram,Eric
Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)


Colvin,Michael
Holland,Philip(Carlton)


Cope,John
Hooson,Tom


Cormack,Patrick
Horam,John


Corrie,John
Hordern,Peter


Costain,Sir Albert
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cranborne,Viscount
Howell,Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)


Critchley,Julian
Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)


Crouch,David
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Dickens,Geoffrey
Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)






Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Mawhinney,DrBnan


Irvine, BryantGodman
May hew, Patrick


lrving,Charles(Cheltenham)
Mellor,David


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Meyer,SirAnthony


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillhead)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


JohnsonSmith,SirGeoffrey
Mills, Iain(Meriden)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Kellett-Bowman,MrsElaine
Miscampbell, Norman


Kershaw,Sir Anthony
Mitchell, R. C. (Sotonltchen)


Kimball,SirMarcus
Monro,SirHector


King, Rt Hon Tom
Montgomery, Fergus


Kitson,SirTimothy
Moore,John


Knox, David
Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)


Lamont,Norman
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Lang, Ian
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Langford-Holt,SirJohn
Mudd,David


Latham,Michael
Murphy,Christopher


Lawrence, Ivan
Neale,Gerrard


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Needham,Richard


Lee, John
Nelson,Anthony


Lennox-Boyd,HonMark
Newton,Tony


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Nott, Rt Hon John


Lewis,Kenneth (Rutland)
O'Halloran, Michael


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Onslow,Cranley


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon MrsS.


Loveridge,John
Page, Richard (SWHerts)


Luce,Richard
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Lyell, Nicholas
Parris,Matthew


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)
Patten, John (Oxford)


McCrindle, Robert
Pattie,Geoffrey


MacGregor,John
Pawsey, James


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Penhaligon,David


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Percival,Sirlan


McNair-Wilson,M.(N'bury)
Pink, R.Bonner


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Porter,Barry


McQuarrie,Albert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Madel, David
Price,SirDavid (Eastleigh)


Major,John
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Marland,Paul
Raison,Rt HonTimothy


Marshall, Michael (Arunctel)
Rathbone,Tim


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Mates,Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Rentom,Tim


Mawby, Ray
Rhodes James, Robert





RhysWilliams,SirBrandon
Temple-Morris,Peter


Ridley,HonNicholas
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Ridsdale,SirJulian
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Thompson,Donald


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thome, Hett(llfordSouth)


Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Thornton, Malcolm


Roper,John
Townend,John(Bridlington)


Rossi, Hugh
Townsend,Cyril D,(B'heath)


Rost, Peter
Trippier,David


Royle,SirAnthony
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Vaughan,Dr Gerard


Sainsbury,HonTimothy
Viggers, Peter


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Waddington, David


Sandelson, Neville
Wainwright,R.(Colne V)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wakeham,John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Waldegrave,HonWilliam


Shelton,William(Streatham)
Walker, Rt Hon P.(Wcester)


Shepherd,Colin(Hereford)
Waller, Gary


Shersby, Michael
Walters,Dennis


Silvester, Fred
Ward,John


Sims, Roger
Warren,Kenneth


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wellbeloved,James


Smith,Tim(Beaconsfield)
Wells,Bowen


Speed, Keith
Wells,John(Maidstone)


Speller,Tony
Wheeler,John


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whitney,Raymond


Squire,Robin
Wiggin,Jerry


Stanbrook,Ivor
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Stanley,John
Wolfson, Mark


Stevens, Martin
Wrigglesworth,Ian


Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)
Young, SirGeorge(Acton)


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stokes,John



Stradling Thomas.J.
Tellers for the Noes:


Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Mr. Carol Mather.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and argeed to.

Resolved,
That this House take note of the Document containing the latest text of the German-Italian proposals on European Union.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Greater London Council (Money) Bill

(By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: We are asking the House to give unanimous support to the Bill. Like its predecessors, it is the only Bill that the Greater London Council is required by statute to promote. The Bill regulates the capital spending of the council and the London Transport Executive and also the lending to other persons by the Greater London Council.
All London Members will have received an explanatory statement from County Hall. It is an extremely useful document. Paragraph 4 outlines the statutory requirements under which the Greater London Council must promote the Bill and gives the appropriate statute.
There are some advantages to this procedure, but I do not need to outline them to hon. Members present tonight. I know that most of them have spent many years in local government at either borough or county level and have taken part in many debates on Bills such as this. There are also some disadvantages. The most obvious is that delays can occur in the legislative process. That does not apply to other local authorities.
Paragraph 8 elaborates on the need for the Bill to make provision for a financial year ending 31 March and the following six months. Parliamentary Standing Orders require the Bill to be deposited in the Private Bill Office on or before 14 April or the first day on which the House sits after Easter, whichever is the later. That time factor may have caused some consternation.
Some of us would consider that to be insufficient time to discuss the documentation. The Standing Orders reflect that it is not a practical proposition for the Greater London Council to deposit the Bill earlier because of the time needed to prepare proper estimates for the 18 months from 1 April and and to approve the estimates following financial consultations with the Treasury and other Government Departments. A lengthy process of consultation must of necessity take place between the officers and members of the Greater London Council and the Government Departments involved. Those consultations are crucial and are invariably aimed at the universal desire to ensure that the Bill has the support of the Government party. I pay tribute to the officers and members of the GLC as well as Government Departments who have ensured that the Bill meets all those requirements.
Because of circumstances with which we are all familiar, this year's Bill has been particularly difficult to assemble. The budget forms the basis of the Bill, and as Councillor Tony Hart, then chairman of the finance and general purposes committee, said when presenting his budget:
I venture to suggest that none of my predecessors has had such a turbulent year upon which to report, none can have had to prepare the next year's budget in such an uncertain atmosphere. I believe that there is general agreement that the process of budget-making in local government is now far too

complex for good decision making. The uncertainty of law., the astonishing farce of the block grant system, the annual promotion of new legislation to control local government have all created a climate in which no one concerned with electorally responsible government can take pride. Only those openly or secretly wishing to see established a form of corporate state in this country can take any satisfaction from the developments of arbitrary central control which have reached such a crescendo in recent months.
Many Labour Members echo those sentiments. There has never been a more difficult year or time to produce this budget and a money Bill linked to it.
Paragraph 3 of the explanatory document clarifies why the Bill must have Royal Assent before the Summer Recess. That is an important part of the timetable, and is the first point that I want to stress. I hope that the House will co-operate to achieve that target.
I mentioned earlier the discussions that have taken place between council officers and Government Departments. We know from reports that through their officers the Government indicated a wish that the expenditure authorised in parts I and II of the schedule should be reduced by £39·6 million. Although the council was inclined to contest the Government's reasons for that reduction, it was nevertheless conscious that added uncertainty and delay to essential investment programmes and employment on those programmes could arise. Therefore, the required amount of £39·6 million was deducted, and the figures in the Bill reflect that fact.
I again stress the importance that those connected with the Bill attach to the discussion process between Government and council and its agreed result. I pray that in aid in asking for unanimous support for the Bill tonight.
My next point concerns the consequences of the council meeting the Government requirements to reduce the budget by £39·6 million. I know that discussions are still going on, but I have not had a chance to catch up on the latest position. Will the Minister underwrite the assurance for which the council has asked about its ability to make use of the 1981–82 underspendings both to support its 1982–83 capital programme and to protect the position in respect of 1983–84, in the same way to all other local authorities?
This Second Reading debate, as with the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act, gives London Members an opportunity to discuss London topics. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will avail themselves of that opportunity, but I do not believe that this is the best way to deal with London's problems or to discuss the important issues that affect London.
I have never accepted that London, with a population probably greater than the combined populations of Scotland and Wales, should have to scratch about for devices and excuses on which to hang discussions on the capital's problems. It could be argued that London is entitled to a Question Time, in view of its large population and the importance of the capital. I certainly feel that we are entitled to a more structured and ordered place on the Order Paper so that we can discuss the many and varied problems that affect London as well as other parts of the country.
I know that hon. Members will take this opportunity to discuss many aspects not only of the Bill but of problems that go much wider. I confine myself to only a couple of points on the Bill.
Probably the two main priorities in the council's expenditure plans are, first, the financing of the Thames


barrier and other public safety costs and, secondly, the planned expenditure on assistance and encouragement to industry and commerce to promote employment and development. All the other issues are important, but I view those as the two main priorities.
The council is estimating expenditure on the Thames barrier of £117,549,000. That is a colossal sum, but all of us who have been involved with the project know how vital and crucial it is and that we make steady progress. I have heard that, in spite of the hiccups, the project is due for completion at the end of this year. No doubt we shall hear more about that as the months go by.
The £117,549,000 also provides for the complementary works both downstream and upstream of the barrier and for protection works on the Thames tributaries. The other public safety costs include improvement works at a number of refuse transfer stations, replacement plant and vehicles and development of civic amenity sites.
Expenditure on the fire services, which is necessary to continue major work at more than a dozen fire stations as well as computer developments for fire service mobilisation and replacement of fire appliances and plant, amounts to about £8¼ million. About £5 million is required for refuse disposal and so on. That is money well spent and is long overdue.
Many of us believe that expenditure on the fire services is necessary because of the ravages of cuts and neglect by previous GLC administrations, particularly the Conservative one. Labour Members well remember the long debates that took place with the then administration at County Hall on the problems of the fire services arising from the council's attempts to cut the fire services and to run down both the supply of appliances and the improvement of the stations.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) played a leading role in those discussions. Sometimes our discussions on the fire brigade were acrimonious. It falls to the new administration to put matters right. It is necessary—no one has dissented from this view—so we support that expenditure.
I hope that no one will dissent from the view that we need to spend money on planning and development of industry, as is suggested by the Bill. It represents a major development for the GLC in 1982–83. No one needs reminding of the prolonged and deep decline of industry and employment in London, as well as in the rest of the country. Some of us here, who are not being wise after the event, opposed the early plans of previous administrations to move industry from London to all sorts of places. We argued then that this would create distressed areas in parts of the capital. We have been proved right, and now there is a move to bring industry and commerce back, which I support.
If I had time I should like to go much more deeply into that aspect of London's life because it affects my constituency as well as other constituencies, but I hope that we shall have other opportunities to discuss these aspects of the problems affecting London. Suffice it to say that it is the council's intention to develop a wide range of new build and refurbishment schemes, in many cases in conjunction with the local boroughs and the private sector.
Other major developments will take place under the auspices of the Greater London Enterprise Board. The

Labour Party and the people that it represents welcome the positive steps being taken to reduce the colossal figure of 340,000 unemployed people and to try to alleviate the indignity, hardship and suffering arising from it in the poorest parts of the capital city.
Schemes are now being worked out in detail with the aim of giving a significant boost to industry and employment in London, and I know that many of my hon. Friends will be able to give examples of the initiative that is being taken.
Under planning powers, the council will be spending money on bringing vacant sites into use and putting resources into London action areas.
I hope that I have said enough to convince the House that the Bill should be given unanimous support and be passed to the appropriate Committee.

Mr. John Hunt: The hon. Gentleman says that he hopes that he has said enough to convince us of the need to pass the Bill. However, I have not heard him deal specifically with the item in the schedule dealing with recreation and the arts. Can he expand on that a little and at least give an assurance that none of the money is earmarked for the kind of fringe radical theatre that is so beloved of Mr. Livingstone?

Mr. Stallard: I defend spending on theatres. I am not anti-theatre and I hope that the House will accept that we do not spend enough on the arts and theatre, either at local or national level. It is necessary for the capital city to spend money on the arts and the theatre. It is one of our greatest attractions. I should defend any expenditure that increased the resources available to the arts and to the theatre in London. I shall be glad, if necessary, to go into further detail later.
I said that I hoped that I had said enough. I could go into the whole list of the revenue estimates, but I have not done so. I have dealt rather with the global sums in the capital estimates. I accept that there are arguments for taking them in pieces, but we would all pick our particular piece. That was not a road that I wanted to go down. We would all pick on one bit and thrash that to death. I could touch on many aspects, but that is not the way to approach this money Bill. We ought rather to look at it as a constructive attempt to improve the situation of London and Londoners generally.
If hon. Members raise points either on the Bill or on any wider aspects affecting the council's functions, I shall try at the end of the debate to reply to them either directly or later in correspondence.

Mr. Toby Jessel: The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) asked for unanimous support for the Bill, but I am afraid that he will not get it from me. We are being asked to authorise the raising of massive sums by local taxation, amounting to about £1,000 million. That is equivalent to about £170 taxation from every individual in London, or about £500 from each household in London. I am not inclined to vote for the Bill.
The GLC has outlived its usefulness. It was in the past most useful. It has rendered valuable service to the public in London both under its 10 years of Conservative rule, and its eight years of Labour rule, since it was set up in 1964 under the London Government Act 1963. However, its functions have been declining dramatically, and its days should now be numbered.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: If my memory is correct, both the hon. Gentleman and I served on a committee of the Greater London council, both with some responsibilities. Is he saying that those responsibilities that we discharged have now been transferred? Does he think that they should not be with the GLC? Can he say to which body he would transfer them? Does he not think that his labours, and mine, were useful and proper on that occasion?

Mr. Jessel: Yes, they were, and I shall come to nearly all the points raised by the hon. Member. I believe that he gave useful service, and I hope that I did. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who will reply was also a full member of the GLC and gave useful service.
However, the functions that we performed have been eroded by the changes that have taken place. I shall give the hon. Member some examples. First, the vast heritage of London housing estates that were inherited by the GLC from the old London County Council in 1964 and 1965 has now been almost entirely handed over to the 32 London boroughs. The sewerage has been handed over to the Thames water authority. In 1973 the ambulances were handed over to the National Health Service. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North referred to the Thames flood barrier. That will be completed before long. The local flood walls, which are important to us in Twickenham, are now virtually complete.
There is not much more scope for traffic management schemes such as one-way schemes and no right turns. The insertion of new yellow lines and double yellow lines is discouraged by the Metropolitan Police because they are so difficult to enforce. There are few, if any, big new main roads proposed.
London buses and tubes are run by London Transport. However, the Secretary of State is expected, after the debates that we have had on this during the winter, to propose that the GLC cease to control London Transport finances. That is right, because it seems to me unjust that ratepayers and householders in an area such as Twickenham should be expected to subsidise that one-quarter of London Transport users who come from outside London and who do not pay GLC rates. Therefore, under the present set-up, the base for any subsidy is wrong and unfair.
As to the remaining functions of the GLC, the fire brigade could easily be put under the Home Secretary, like the Metropolitan Police, or under the London Boroughs Association. The Royal Festival Hall and the other parts of the South Bank arts complex could be put under the Minister for the Arts or the Arts Council, as could the other art functions.
The few remaining Greater London council parks, such as Marble Hill in Twickenham, could easily be transferred to the appropriate borough council, in that case the Richmond upon Thames council. The remaining licensing, road traffic and planning functions again could go mainly to the 32 London boroughs which largely duplicate the work of the GLC in planning and traffic control.
Those functions are important. I do not under-estimate the importance of the GLC's work in those matters even today. However, they are not sufficient to justify the continuing existence of a vast, elected regional authority spending a colossal sum of public money annually.
I say all that with some sadness. As the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned a few minutes ago, I was a member of the GLC for six years from 1967 until 1973, although for the last three years I was unable to make much contribution because I arrived in the House in 1970 and thereafter concentrated most of my efforts here.
It made sound sense at the time of the London Government Act 1963 to set up the 20 new outer London boroughs, large enough to run their own education services which, in the case of the Kent suburbs, had been administered from Maidstone, the Essex suburbs from Chelmsford, the Surrey suburbs from Kingston and the Middlesex suburbs from the Middlesex Guildhall. Parliament clearly intended at that time that the London boroughs were to be the main units of local government in Greater London. If any services had to be run over a wider area, such as sewage disposal or new motorway construction, they were to be put under the new GLC which was to be a strategic authority.
There were ambitious plans to construct three ringways in the late 1960s and early 1970s, although they never fully materialised. The inner London motorway box was partly constructed. The east cross route was completed to the north and south of the Blackwall tunnel. The west cross route was only completed for half a mile or so from Shepherds Bush to White City. The second ringway was to comprise the existing North Circular in the north and a new South Circular in the south. That was never started because of the strong feeling that prevailed about the amount of housing that would have to be destroyed to make way for it. The third ringway, the outer London one, was replaced by the M25 motorway, which is now under construction further out.
The role as the prime unit of local government that Parliament intended for the 32 London boroughs was eroded in the eyes of the public because the GLC was able to obtain publicity wholly disproportionate to its real functions. That publicity was enhanced because the wide area that it covered—the whole of Greater London with a population of nearly 7 million—happened largely to overlap the areas covered by certain media, particularly the London evening newspapers and London and South-East television and radio programmes.
From quite early on the GLC built up a corresponding publicity machine. It also attracted some members and officers of a high calibre, for many of whom I have had and still have a great respect. That conglomeration of talent and ability, coupled with a powerful publicity machine, combined to conceal from the public the real erosion of the GLC's functions through the 1970s. It is not surprising that the public are hazy about what those functions are. The public are right to be hazy.
The abolition of the GLC would put a question mark over the future of the Inner London education authority which, I believe, is composed of 42 Greater London councillors from 42 inner London constituencies, coinciding with the 12 London boroughs, and one member from each of the 12 London boroughs, making a total of 54.
There would have to be a choice concerning the future of the Inner London education authority. The 12 inner London boroughs could each become a separate education authority like the 20 outer London boroughs, or they could combine to continue under an association such as the London Boroughs Association. Or the Inner London


education authority could conceivably be directly elected, although I have not come across anyone seriously canvassing that alternative.
The future of the Inner London education authority, and of education in inner London, is an extremely serious and important matter for the young people of inner London. It must be given careful thought. However, there is no reason why it should prevent the abolition of the GLC which covers two and a half times the population.
The abolition of the GLC would now be both right and popular. I hope that it will be in the Conservative Party's manifesto at the next general election.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) on the moderate and clear way in which he has put to the House his interpretation of the contents of the Bill. He reads a brief beautifully and he has a great future at the Dispatch Box as a Minister.
It is not my intention, in tabling a blocking motion against the Bill, to do so lightly or frivolously. It is an important Bill and it should be fully discussed. If the House is so minded, it should be voted upon.
The hon. Gentleman referred to delays being a possible disadvantage to the GLC. Under recent changes in the provisions applying to the relationship between the GLC and the House, the Bill now relates to the first half of the following financial year. Last year's money Bill provided for the finances of the GLC to carry it forward for a few more months without any great disadvantage should the House of Commons, in its wisdom, decide that the Bill deserved thorough examination.
The hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Tony Hart, the chairman of the finance committee of the GLC, who had responsibility for the preparation of the money Bill. The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was prepared in an uncertain atmosphere. It must have been a very uncertain atmosphere for Mr. Tony Hart because, having prepared it, he was given the sack as the chairman and someone else took over. Therefore, I appreciate and sympathise with his uncertainty.
The hon. Gentleman paid some considerable attention to that vital subject, the Thames flood barrier. I join wholeheartedly with him in saying that that is a project that must be completed at the earliest possible moment. I am sure that I echo the hopes of all London Members, of whatever party, when I say that I hope that there will be no delays and no further industrial disputes—necessary or unnecessary—in the provision of this essential protection for London's people. It would be a tragedy if that scheme, which has now run many years over its projected completion date, should suffer any further delays, either through lack of finance, industrial dispute or any other reason.
I particularly welcome the hon. Gentleman's sentiments concerning the raising of the banks on the downstream side of the barrier, because that is where my constituency lies. While I am delighted that the barrier will provide protection for the upstream boroughs of London, I am also pleased that the hon. Gentleman was able to reassure the House that finance is available for the

continued provision and extension of raising the river bank and other associated works for those areas downstream of the barrier.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North spoke with deep feeling about unemployment in London. I join wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman in expressing that sentiment. As a former member of the party to which he belongs I join him in accepting part of the responsibility which we all share for the regional development policies of previous Governments. They played a great part in draining industry and jobs away from London.
The same could be said of successive Greater London Councils under varying political control. They also contributed to the relocation of London's industry outside London. The tragedy now is that Londoners are having to pay a heavy price in unemployment—although there are other reasons—for the policies of successive Governments and successive Greater London Councils. I hope that those parts of the GLC's policy to deal with unemployment which might be effective will have some success, but I have some serious reservations about the likely outcome of some of the propositions.
In an intervention the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) asked about grants to various organisations. The hon. Gentleman made a good point because the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North carefully avoided any reference to the grants by the GLC to a vast range of organisations. I have a document in my hand which gives the details. However, I shall not bore the House by giving all of them—I shall pick out one or two as an illustration of the type of organisations on which the GLC is spending money.
I would ask the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, if he is given leave to speak again, to explain the benefits to London ratepayers of some of the grants. East London News received £10,000. The London Film and Screen Industry received £20,000. City Limits received £100,000 as a loan. In fairness to the House, the hon. Gentleman should say a few words about the grants in the document. Some people might consider that the document—I do not necessarily refer to the grants that I have read out—is a "Trots charter" for subsidy by the ratepayers of London to organisations to which, if they knew the facts about their activities and composition, they would not give a penny, let alone the thousands of pounds set out in the document.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Whatever the hon. Gentleman's judgment about the individual organisations to which money is being lent or given, will he give the total amounts involved, first, in terms of loans and, secondly, in terms of grants, in relation to the total budget of the Greater London Council? Furthermore, is it his intention to prevent the Bill receiving its Second Reading because of his particular views about a matter that is almost, in financial terms at least, de minimis?

Mr. Wellbeloved: If the hon. Gentleman is patient he will find that I shall come to more substantial points in terms overall volumes of moneys. He has put a perfectly fair point to me about the total cost of the grants and loans and their relationship to the budget. However, distinguished lawyer though he may be, the hon. Gentleman put the question to the wrong hon. Member. His hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North did not mention these matters, but I hope, if he is given leave to speak again, he will give details that his hon. Friend has so rightly asked for.

Mr. Clinton Davis: When an hon. Member advances an argument it is incumbent on him to justify it. As he has rightly said, the point that I have put to him cannot be other than a reasonable one in determining the validity of his argument. I repeat the question. Either he has not done his homework and will not be able to answer it—that is fair enough and I would accept that—or, if he has done his homework, may we have the particulars?

Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman has tempted me to give details that I had not intended to inflict on the House. However, with that invitation, I have little option. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would like to get their pens and papers out I will read the details. The hon Gentleman can then do his own arithmetic as he goes through them. I shall start on page 1 of the document.
Services for the Unemployed received a grant of £5,000. The Trade Union Resource Centre received a grant of £60,000 in the current financial year and £140,000 for premises. I hope the hon. Gentleman is taking a full note. The Greenwich Employment Resources Unit received a grant of £37,000. The Haringey Women's Employment Project received £7,000 grant for research.

Mr. Stuart Holland: rose—

Mr. Wellbeloved: If the hon. Member for Vauxhall will restrain himself he will have an opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the House would be delighted to hear from such a stalwart defender of the Marxist-Bennite clique on the GLC.

Mr. Holland: rose—

Mr. Clinton Davis: rose—

Mr. Wellbeloved: I shall give way in a moment when I have read out the list to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis). I am able to deal with only one hon. Gentleman at a time.
Operation Springboard received £19,000 as a grant for employing employment liaison officers. The Tower Hamlets Training Forum received the slightly more significant sum of £20,000 on a loan. The Lambeth Centre for the Unemployed received the relatively small sum of £5,100. The Job Sharing Project received £7,700 plus another £7,700 making a total of £15,400 in grant. The Wandsworth Enterprise Development Agency received £35,000.
It might be for the convenience of the House if I were to nip through and mention some of the larger times, unless the hon. Member for Hackney, Central wants me to read them all out so that he can do his homework in the absence of his hon. Friend.

Mr. Clinton Davis: rose—

Mr. Wellbeloved: I shall not give way again just at the moment. I shall list some of the larger items. There is Capital Job Mate, with a grant of £10,000 and another £40,000 next year. There is the National Child Care Campaign. That may be an entirely desirable body.

Mr. John Fraser: rose—

Mr. Wellbeloved: I must treat the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) in the same way as I treated the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland). I promise him that I shall come to him, after I have given way to the hon. Member for Vauxhall. Then there is the Apex Trust,

London region. Again, that may be a highly desirable-body, because it is getting £20,000 grant. The Waterloo Employment Project, which again may be highly desirable, is getting about £20,000. The Elephant Jobs at Southwark—I do not know what that is. I hope that the Minister knows. The Minister shakes his head. His Government have agreed this Bill with the GLC, and I assume that they have looked carefully at its provisions.
Then there is the Capital Job Mate, with a grant amounting to £50,000 in total. There is the Newham Cooperative Development Agency. I am entirely in favour of that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) knows. As a member of the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society political purposes committee, I seek to encourage, almost monthly, that body to give greater emphasis to the development of co-operative enterprises. So that is probably a good item.
There are other items for £50,000, and so on. I could go on. There is a loan for £100,000 for City Limits. I hope that I have given enough information to whet the appetite of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central. Now 1 gladly give way to the hon. Member for Vauxhall.

Mr. Stuart Holland: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In fact, he completely missed the point of my hon. Friend's question, which was the ratio of these resources to greater London resources as a whole. The matter can be put into perspective if we take into account the fact that, instead of the £10,000 here and £5,000 there that he talks about. about £10 million a day is given in tax rebates to British business—tax which is not claimed. Those are the orders of magnitude to which the House should address itself. The hon. Gentleman has wrung his hands about unemployment in London. Will he now address himself to what he will do to create employment in London?

Mr. Wellbeloved: No doubt, when the House of Commons is considering taxation matters, as it is now doing in the Finance Bill Committee upstairs, and again later on the Floor of the House, the hon. Gentleman can deploy his arguments about tax handouts, as he describes them, to business. At the moment we are dealing with the narrow but none the less expensive matter of the GLC's finances. The hon. Gentleman, in his generous way with public money, says that these grants, ranging from?£5,000 to well over £100,000, are of little magnitude. It is a matter of his judgment, but I am bound to say that it is not mine. These sums may represent a relatively low proportion of the GLC's total expenditure, but at some stage it is right for Parliament to examine what the people in County Hall are spending—not their money, but public money—allegedly in the name of the people of London. I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Nor-wood.

Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Gentleman, who represents southern outflow sewer, mentioned Capital Job Mate, and spoke in disparaging terms about its grants. I hope that he realises that Capital Job Mate is where Capital Radio harnesses its own resources to help young people, particularly those in difficulty, to find employment. There the GLC is spending a very small amount of money to help the least advantaged to find employment through the medium of Capital Radio. I am sorry to hear him speak in disparaging terms of such a magnificent project.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am delighted that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, because his intervention allows me


to repeat an observation which I made earlier which unfortunately he did not hear correctly. I said that one could not judge the particular bodies in the document, nor did I necessarily want to accuse those that I read out of being improper bodies.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman did.

Mr. Wellbeloved: If the hon. Gentleman seeks to put that interpretation on my words, let me make it quite clear that although I believe that there are a significant number of highly undesirable organisations in that list, there are also many desirable organisations. It may well be that the organisation which the hon. Member for Norwood mentioned is one of them, and from what he said that would appear to be so. However, I know that other hon. Gentlemen, particularly on the Opposition Benches, in the months ahead will seek to make all sorts of accusations about the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford making blanket condemnations. So let me put on record precisely what I am saying. It is incumbent on the GLC, and particularly on the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North—[Interruption] . The hon. Member for Vauxhall, with all his public school education, criticises a working class person like me about my pronunciation.

Mr. Holland: rose—

Mr. Wellbeloved: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished my few remarks about him. He criticised me from a sedentary position. I know that he will not consider this unfair, because I think it is generally known that he has had a superb education. It is such a tragedy that it has been wasted. I shall now give way to him.

Mr. Holland: I wanted to know—as, I am sure, do other Members on these Benches—exactly what the hon. Gentleman means. I shall put on one side some of the more florid adjectives to which he is suited. If he wishes to make a case in the House—and granted that it is not supported by the list of details of individual expenditures—will he tell us what measures he and his party advocate for creating the unemployment in London about which he wrings his hands?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I hate to draw attention to the hon. Gentleman's slip about creating unemployment. I assure him that, unlike him and his party, the Social Democratic Party is determined to reduce unemployment, not only in London but throughout Britain. However, I shall not go into that matter, because it is outside the scope of the Bill, although I would be delighted to describe to the House the excellent programme which my party has prepared and made public to deal with the serious economic problems of the country.
I come back to the clarification I was seeking to make before all those interruptions. In my view, it is the responsibility of the hon. Member who introduces a Bill of this importance to spell out clearly what is happening to public money, whether it is £24 million to the enterprise board or a much smaller sum, as in the case of the bodies that I have read out. It is not my responsibility. It is the responsibility of the sponsors to justify their Bill.
Having dealt with the introductory speech of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North I shall deal with the main provisions of the Bill.

Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Gentleman has taken 20 minutes.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I have no idea whether I have taken that time. If the hon. Gentleman checks the record tomorrow he will find that most of that time was taken up with interruptions, both proper ones and mutterings.
The House is called upon to consider the Bill under difficult circumstances. It is difficult to deal with its ramifications. Vast sums of money are involved. I have no complaint against the officers of the GLC who have readily responded to the requests that I have made for information. My complaint is about another matter. I have been unable to give the Bill the detailed study that I should have liked. There has not been sufficient time between receiving information from the GLC and today's debate. I regret that the Bill has been discussed far too early. I have already registered my strong feelings of that to the Chairman of Ways and Means. I understand his problems but I hope that in future, when Bills of this magnitude come before the House, there will be more time to study the voluminous documents that are connected with the size of the sums involved. In the limited time that has been available to me I have had to concentrate on only a few issues. I shall return to them.
We must consider the Bill in the light of the current political climate in London. In my opinion, and that of growing numbers of Londoners, the present GLC, since it took office, has brought that council into disrepute. Many people may question, as did the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), whether the GLC is required any longer and whether the London borough councils could do a better job if the functions of the GLC were transferred to them. They could form a joint London voluntary co-operative committee—a joint metropolitan standing committee as it were—that would be able to deal with many of the problems.
It would be a tragedy if the Inner London Education Authority were destroyed. If there is one gem left in the crown of the GLC, it is the ILEA. I may not agree with all of its policies or expenditures, but I am convinced that it has developed a system of education in London that is proving to be immensely beneficial to London's children. Nothing that I say should be taken in any way as detracting from my admiration for and support of the ILEA. There is, however, one proviso. If the ILEA starts to follow the irresponsible attitude of the GLC, my support and praise will fade away.

Mr. Jessel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he accept the line of argument that I developed just before he started to speak about three-quarters of an hour ago that it would be possible to find some way of abolishing the GLC without necessarily abolishing the ILEA, although the latter body would have to be slightly differently constituted?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I was not a Member of Parliament when the local government reorganisation took place but I took part in many of the discussions against it. I said that the formation of the GLC and 32 London boroughs would not benefit Londoners. It is with no joy that I claim that that judgment has proved correct. If it is possible—I hope that it will be—to phase out the GLC and to develop co-operation among the London borough councils, I should


be favourably disposed to consider that proposition provided that the ILEA continues—provided also that it remains under responsible control.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Is the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) aware that the annunciator says that my hon. Friend started to speak at 7.45 pm and that he therefore cannot have been speaking for three-quarters of an hour? Secondly, the hon. Member for Twickenham, one of the great proponents of the 1963 Act, will remember having arguments with me in Camberwell when he wanted the whole fracas to take place—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) will resist the temptation to widen the debate to that extent. The debate concerns the expenditure of the Greater London Council and the London Transport Executive. He should confine his speech to those subjects.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I have no intention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of being tempted into those avenues by my hon. Friend, as I know that conversion comes to many people in Parliament and outside and I am delighted that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) has been converted from his earlier fallacious opinion.
It is my assertion today that the people of London are sick and tired of the party political battle between Whitehall and County Hall and particularly of the propaganda war being waged by the GLC through the publication at considerable expense to ratepayers of all kinds of documents designed not so much to inform Londoners as to propagate the party views of those now in control of the GLC.
No doubt, as I develop the main threads of my argument, certain hon. Members will prattle on that the GLC, after all, has a mandate to do all these diabolical things. I see the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) on the Labour Front Bench nodding his head. [HoN. MEMBERS: "He is nodding off."] I do not accept that suggestion. The hon. Member for Edmonton is a diligent Member and I have never known him to nod off in a debate, so he must have been nodding in agreement with my assertion that some will say that the Labour GLC has a mandate to do all the diabolical things that it is doing to the people of London. I, however, dispute that view. The poll was very low and I doubt whether the London Labour Party distributed many copies of its full manifesto to the people of London. The document put out in my constituency was certainly very short. Incidentally, in its references to finance, the manifesto suggested to the electors of Bexley that the cost of London Transport to the average householder would be 45p per week, whereas it turned out to be £1·89 per week until—thank God—the law intervened and brought back a little reality to the activities of the GLC.
In any event, I am sure that I shall receive some support from Conservative Members when I say this. Even if the full manifesto of the party now in control of the GLC had been made available to a wide range of Londoners before they cast their votes, what would they have made of it? They might well have seen, as many of them did, the then leader of the Labour group, Mr. McIntosh, on the television and decided that he was not a bad lad and clearly a moderate and thus have voted Labour all the same. The

tragedy was that Mr. McIntosh did not last 24 hours before being ousted by the present gentleman, to whom I need not refer as his action.; and words have spoken for themselves. I merely add that the tactic used in the GLC of putting on a moderate face and ditching it the day after the election would be repeated here if the electors were so misguided as to elect a Labour Government—it would not be the moderates but the Bennite-Marxist faction who would quickly take control of their destiny here.

Mr. Stuart Holland: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that it is a convention of the House in discussing Bills of this nature to allow a certain freedom of expression to range over a wide subject area. Nevertheless, would it not be more appropriate for the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) to address himself to arguments concerning the Bill than to continue making merely speculative statements?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was again becoming a little anxious about the recent remarks of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). He must restrict his remarks to the work of the GLC and the London Transport Executive and its capital expenditure aspect.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had noticed the glint in your eye and I intended to make a purely passing reference and then to return to precisely the items to which you advise me to address myself.
The Bill seeks parliamentary approval for a very substantial sum—more than £1,000 million. That is no trifling sum. For that reason, the House has a duty to examine its contents most carefully. I hope that the Government and their supporters will bear in mind that. they cannot allow a Bill of this magnitude requiring such a sum of money to pass without proper scrutiny and perhaps a vote, and then later indulge in the luxury of criticism when the GLC begins to spend, to loan and to use the money that an acquiescent House has allowed to pass without proper scrutiny.
The objects of the Bill that are clearly set out on page 3, in line 15, cannot be obtained without the authority of Parliament. Once it is enacted, none of us can escape responsibility for all that flows from it. That is why I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to take a positive interest in the Bill and consider their position carefully when the time comes to vote.
Part I of the schedule concerns the prescribed expenditure of the GLC. Part II is about loans to people and organisations. to which we have already referred briefly.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Rubbish.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I must protest, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman says "rubbish" but he has only just entered the Chamber and cannot know whether we are talking rubbish. It is a bit of a cheek for someone to wander in and to make such remarks.
Part III of the schedule concerns finances that will enable more flexible budgeting between years. Page 8 of the document with which the GLC supplied me draws attention to the fact that, having attained parliamentary approval, the GLC can exercise virement between the headings without reference back to Parliament.
I say to the Minister that we are not talking about pennies in the Bill. As he is probably well aware, part I


of the schedule refers to about £728 million, part II to about £144 million and part III to £39 million. We must have some assurance that if we vote tonight in favour of the £728 million provision in part I and the GLC, having obtained our approval, wishes to switch half of that money to loans to organisations, it can not do it under the procedure of virement. I am amazed that the Minister and his colleagues have allowed this possibility to occur and I beg him at this late stage to consider the principle of virement, expecially in the light of the GLC's recent performance. That is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs and there is little confidence that the GLC will act responsibly. I hope the Minister will give an assurance that he will try to ensure that some control is exercised over the GLC.
One of the things that the Bill does not make clear—nor did the hon. Member for St. Pancras North—is that the Bill contains a contingency balance provision, not for a few paltry pounds but for £30 million. I quote the comptroller of GLC finance, Mr. Stonefrost, who describes the special contingency balance as
only to be used if extensive and unavoidable events
would otherwise require borrowing. With the sort of madcap schemes that we have seen put forward by the GLC, we know that there will be extensive undertakings. They will be unavoidable because nothing is avoidable under the irresponsible leadership that London must now endure.

Mr. Dobson: It is what we must endure under this Prime Minister.

Mr. Wellbeloved: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to give way. I do not seek your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope that we shall at least have some decorum from the hon. Gentleman while he is in the Chamber.
Several sums of money mentioned in the Bill relate to Thamesmead in my constituency. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East is here. I know that he will have something to say on the subject. I pay tribute to the residents of Thamesmead because I do not wish anything that I say to be misunderstood there. I have the greatest admiration for the community spirit that they have developed.
However, many of my constituents are in a serious position. I refer to the scandal of residents in areas such as Greenmead, Moat Gardens, Windrush and Fieldfare, who have been trying to purchase their homes. There is substantial provision in the Bill for home loans. I appeal to the GLC to use some of the money to help my constituents, who have suffered long delays, frustration and cost. It must have seemed as though the GLC has a vendetta against them.
To give the House an idea of that victimisation, many of my constituents moved into their homes on the basis that they could buy them under an arrangement with the GLC. They pay a higher rent on that basis. Some claim that they were told that a portion of the higher rent would be credited to them when they bought the house. They were also told that they would have the benefit of a sliding scale of discount.
I know that some Opposition Members are not in favour of the sale of council houses. They may be right, but where residents have moved in on a clear understanding and

promise, it is disgraceful that they should now be victimised. It is not a minor victimisation. The rents for equivalent property are about £28 a week, but those people must pay as much as £44 a week. They are the victims of spite and have been forced to pay higher rents for months and in some cases for more than a year. The GLC has turned a blind eye to their plight and a deaf ear to the representations on their behalf.
I am tired of hearing members of the GLC mouthing platitudes about working people and their plight. What sort of people do they believe the residents of Thamesmead are? They are plumbers, carpenters, office workers and hospital workers. They are decent, ordinary, working men and women struggling to bring up their families. I plead with the GLC to end its callous disregard of their plight and to use some of the money allocated in the Bill to discharge its responsibilities to my constituents.

Mr. John Cartwright: I have closely followed my hon. Friend's arguments. Is he aware that similar problems affect some parts of my constituency? In one road occupants of similar property are in some cases owner-occupiers, in some cases paying high rent and in others the traditional rent. How can that be fair, reasonable or just?

Mr. Wellbeloved: It is neither fair, reasonable nor just. The Greater London Council should deal with that immediately. I challenge the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North to say whether the Greater London Council will discharge its responsibilities towards my constituents and those of my hon. Friend. If it does not, I should be surprised if hon. Members allow the Bill to pass while that disgraceful business still hovers in the background. I am pleading for fair play for my constituents and those of my hon. Friend. Let an end be put to this unfortunate story. I hope that as a result of these debates the Greater London Council will act with humanity towards those innocent people.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman, who has been talking about the problems of his constituents and those of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), confirm that there is some inadequacy in the provisions which the Government pushed through, as his constituents cannot exercise their rights under the law?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I wish that I could say that all the problems arose out of the right-to-buy provisions, but that is not the case. Most of the people moved into the houses long before the Government took office. They are the victims of both the previous Conservative-controlled GLC and the present Labour-controlled GLC. To be as fair as the circumstances warrant, the previous GLC had some problems about the legal ownership of the land. It made a cock-up. It built houses on land to which it did not have proper title. Whoever was responsible—I am speaking to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson)—for the creation of the mess and whatever excuses there are for its continuation, I hope that all hon. Members will say that it is now time that the GLC ended its callous disregard for the people to whom I have referred.
There are good community facilities in Thamesmead. As that area continues to develop there is a desperate need for the proper provision of community accommodation. Greenmead is a thriving community with a good residents


association. It urgently needs community accommodation for the old, the young and all other members of the community. There are some empty shops near the Greenmead development built by the GLC, that it has not yet been able to let. I hope that it will use some of the capital provided in the Bill to allow the use of those shops or to provide a community hall for Greenmead. Provision is made in the Bill for the mobility of tenants and the transfer scheme that is operated by the GLC. I believe that there is inadequate provision for the transfer of those who want to move throughout the length and breadth of London. There is a great deal more that the GLC could do and it would be rendering a better service to Londoners if it concentrated on these issues rather than on some of the programmes upon which it has embarked.
I shall give an example of the vital nature of mobility. There is a couple in my constituency who have an adult mentally handicapped son. The lad attends a residential hospital during the weekdays to work and to be trained. He returns to mum and dad for the weekends. The parents want to move from their present flat, which is in a high rise block, because it is inadequate in the light of the serious domestic circumstances that confront them. They want to move to a small home with two bedrooms and a patch of garden so that their son, with all the disabilities that he suffers, can be properly cared for and have some relaxation when he comes home at weekends.
A council of the size of the GLC could surely find it within its capacity and heart to do something for this family. I regret to have to tell the House that so far I have not been able to persuade it to act. The money that is being sought following parliamentary approval could provide the basis for dealing with the family to whom I have referred and with others in similar circumstances in many other constituencies.

Mr. Dobson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the GLC's capacity to assist the tenant in question, or any other tenant, has been undermined considerably because the Government have compulsorily transferred virtually the whole of its housing stock to the boroughs, which means that it does not have the letting capacity that it once had?

Mr. Wellbeloved: That argument might apply to the hon. Gentleman's constituency but it does not apply to mine.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Of course it does.

Mr. Wellbeloved: With great respect, it does not. Thamesmead, which provides the bulk of the GLC's housing accommodation in my constituency has not—to the best of my knowledge this will not happen—had that accommodation transferred to the London borough of Bexley.

Mr. Jay: Surely the hon. Gentleman understands that as the total accommodation available to the GLC throughout London has been cut enormously, possible mobility has been virtually destroyed. That is what I have found when dealing with many cases similar to the one that he has mentioned. His constituents cannot move out of Thamesmead to Roehampton, for example, because the rented accommodation in Roehampton is no longer the property of the GLC.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I accept that. However, that does not detract from my argument. If the GLC is providing an

overall strategic direction for London, surely it could develop an effective mobility scheme with the cooperation of the London borough councils.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: The Under-Secretary of State sits on the Treasury Bench in his languid form having said repeatedly that the mobility scheme is working. He has sent me letter after letter to tell me that and I continue to explain to him why the scheme is not working. He sits on the Treasury Bench and he still believes that it is working. Will my hon. Friend repeat what he has just said for the benefit of the Minister?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Minister is adopting a languid attitude. However, I know that he is an effective Minister. If it were within his power, I have no doubt that he would do something about it. However, he is constrained by those in higher authority in Government circles who may seek to restrain him. I very much hope, knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, that he will take seriously the point that I have made about' my own constituents—and the points that have been made in interventions by other Members—in trying to ensure that there is a more adequate mobility scheme for London so that the very human problems, that I know he is concerned about, can be dealt with.
I want now to turn away from my constituency and deal with some of the more costly factors in this Bill. Of course, I am bound to turn to the Greater London Enterprise Board. There is provision in the schedule to the Bill for some £24 million in the estimates. On what sort of enterprise will the GLC use this huge sum of money? I have little faith in the Greater London Council. I fear that neither it nor these whom it appoints. to the enterprise board will exercise the prudence and wisdom that Londoners deserve. This £24 million will not end up creating all the jobs that we require; a great deal of it will be squandered on very fancy schemes indeed.
Only yesterday, The Standard, that excellent evening paper that serves .London, referred to the Greater London Enterprise Board and the appointment of its chief executive, who is to be paid £45,000.

Mr. Dubs: No.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) says no, and if the press has got it right—

Mr. Dobson: That is highly unlikely!

Mr. Wellbeloved: I know that there is reference to some dispute in the controlling group of the GLC, so let us hope that better sense has prevailed and that it will not pay £25,000 plus the perks which are set out in this article, amounting to £45,000.
It seems to many people in London that what the GLC is doing in this case is finding a job for one of its pals. In my view, the Greater London Council would make a greater contribution to London's unemployment problems and to the encouragement of industry in London if it dropped some of Is outrageous schemes and reduced the rates on Londoners and businesses. [Interruption.] An hon. Member behind me groans, but the London Chamber of Commerce in an excellent document, produced after a great deal of research, clearly showed that the burden of rates, although not entirely responsible, contributes to the disincentive of business to expand, prosper and provide employment for Londoners

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I will not give way for a moment; I would like to finish one little bit at a time.
There is no doubt that although rates are not the overriding or—I would not even pray this in aid—the most significant factor, they are a significant factor in this matter. The GLC could make its contribution towards improving employment by reducing the rates.
The House should think carefully before giving approval to money in this Bill that will be used by the GLC for the Greater London Enterprise Board. We ought to have firm and precise details before the House tonight. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North should produce them, setting out just what we are consenting to if we agree to the provision of this £24 million. If we do not have precise details, the money could be spent on any old fancy scheme that it dreamt up. It would be a sure recipe for squandering this money provided by Londoners.

Mr. Dubs: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for some time and has made many allegations against the Greater London Council. Is he against efforts by the Greater London Council to provide more jobs for the people or London—yes or no?

Mr. Wellbeloved: There is no doubt in my mind: if we could have faith that the Greater London Council would act responsibly and would make efforts to deal with unemployment, it would go some way to mitigating the effects of the policies of the national Government. I have no confidence in the national Government, but I have even less confidence in the Greater London Council to be able to do anything.
There is very little capital provision in the Bill for home defence. I hope that the Minister will say something about civil defence and about the provision by the GLC for these essential services. I am aware of the view of the GLC on civil defence and I disagree with it absolutely. It is acting not in the interests of London but through doctrinaire political dogma. The Government should take firm steps to ensure that there is adequate home defence for London if the GLC fails to deliver the goods. Some provision has been made, but in its own estimate projections it does not make any provision for future years.
Under environment, some provision is made for home defence but, knowing the policy of the GLC, I fear that, although it has got approval for this modest sum, it will immediately use it for something else. Again I ask the Minister to watch carefully what the people in County Hall are up to and to make certain that they do not come here even for a modest provision for home defence and then use it for something else. They have the responsibility to perform an essential civil and home defence role for London, and the Minister has responsibility to ensure that they do so.
In regard to the community relations programme that the GLC has embarked on—

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is my understanding that the Bill refers to capital expenditure. I seek your guidance. Will the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) confirm that this aspect is covered in the Bill, of is he just shuffling off into another of his mazy references to GLC policies that he does not like?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a fairly wide debate, as I said earlier. What the hon. Gentleman is now referring to is in order.

Mr. Wellbeloved: What is dimly apparent to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is blindingly obvious to me. I took the trouble of relating all my remarks to capital provision. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the GLC's own budget projections at page 195, he will see there a substantial sum for the provision of office equipment and support services. It would be a bold Member who took the view that none of that provision was to be applied to the establishment of the two new committees set up by the GLC, the ethnic minorities committee and the police committee. I fear that the hon. Gentleman's point was not a good one, but it enabled me to explain the details to him, and I am grateful for that.
I was saying that the GLC has entered areas that are clearly outside its legitimate responsibility, particularly in respect of the police. Many Londoners deeply resent the expenditure of money on a propaganda campaign aimed at undermining the Metropolitan Police. A vast number of Londoners believe, as I do, that it is scandalous. Despite the many problems in policing London, Londoners have a thousand times more confidence in the Metropolitan Police than they have in the Greater London Council. The GLC could save millions of pounds by ceasing this extravaganza of moving into areas where it has no legitimate standing. The guardians of the Metropolitan Police are the Home Secretary and the House. Setting up a police committee is a complete waste of money, but it is part and parcel of the Left-wing campaign that has more to do with the perverted politics of the GLC than with the safety and well-being of Londoners.
I turn now to the question of road expenditure. One of my hon. Friends has a detailed speech to make on this subject, so I shall confine my remarks to a small issue that concerns my constituency. A considerable amount of money is being spent on a subway in the town centre of Erith. It is not wanted by the local people and a delegation from all parties has been to see GLC officials. It made no headway. The GLC is determined to press on and force this wretched little subway on to a community that does not want it. It is a terrible waste of money. If the GLC wants to save money and contribute to the success of London, it should take a little more interest in the affairs of local people.
That leads me to another local issue that squarely falls within the responsibility of the GLC and its capital provisions in the Bill. I shall be delighted to give way if the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South wishes to take up this point. It relates to the provision of proper and safe means of crossing main roads. I make no apology for time and again referring to the effect of the GLC's activities on my constituents.
The purpose of Members of Parliament is to bring these important matters to Parliament's attention.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wellbeloved: In a moment, when I have finished this point.
A pedestrian crossing in North End Road has proved to be inadequate for the speed of traffic and the number of people who cross the road at that point. A pelican crossing


is necessary. There is provision in the Bill for funds to be used for such crossings, and I can give chapter and verse if required.
Local residents in favour of a pelican crossing have organised a massive petition. I have contacted the Metropolitan Police and received a letter—I shall not quote from it in view of the shortage of time—stating that a pelican crossing is clearly the responsibility of the Greater London Council. If the GLC wanted to discharge its responsibilities on public health and safety to my constituents it has the power under the Bill to find the capital to provide that simple facility in North End Road. I hope that it will act quickly before more of my constituents are injured.
I notice that the GLC is spending thousands of pounds on propaganda about the bomb. Let it spend just a few pounds to provide safety for the constituents of Erith and Crayford. I again refer to the list of outside bodies that are receiving grants. I should be grateful for just a few of those thousands of pounds to provide safety and security for my constituents.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman justifies his extraordinarily long speech in a three-hour debate on the ground that he is representing the interests of his constituents. Does he accept that, by the grossly discourteous way in which he has hogged the debate, he has prevented a substantial number of other hon. Members from drawing attention to matters that are close to the hearts of their constituents? If this represents the SDP breaking the mould of British politics, it is a pretty stinking design that the SDP intends to introduce.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I take the hon. Gentleman's strictures seriously. I only wish that he had been in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate to demonstrate his responsibilities more positively. As I glance at the few assembled Members who are present, I think that the people of London would be horrified to discover how Members for the London area are discharging their responsibilities. I would have been delighted had 90 London Members wanted to take part. I would have made an extremely short speech. Unfortunately, one does not have to be in the House very long before one becomes aware of the ploys and procedural devices that can be used to avoid a vote on a particular issue.
I have no doubt that discussions have taken place in the normal conspiracy between extreme Left wingers in the Labour Party and extreme Right wingers in the Conservative Party to combine to thwart this fledgling political party which, although outside the confines of the Bill, poses such a threat to them.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am reluctant to give way because the hon. Gentleman has already had two or three goes. Giving way would not be fair to other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South. If I again give way to the hon. Gentleman, I shall be blamed for prolonging the debate. I wanted to make a short speech to bring the problems of my constituency to the attention of the House, but if the hon. Gentleman insists on intervening, I shall give him a few seconds.

Mr. Holland: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the merits of his own case and his party. If he is so confident

that London wants in office his party rather than the Labour Party, will he follow the example of the former Member for Mitcham and Morden and put his belief to the test?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go down that road. It would be quite out of order.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would be wrong to go down that road because we are discussing the Greater London Council (Money) Bill. The Labour Party manifesto does not fall for discussion within this debate. That is a pity, because had it done so I could have told the hon. Gentleman that I still support almost everything in that manifesto, which he has betrayed. I would give him the details if that were in order. Labour Members have rejected, repudiated and thrown away most of the solemn promises on which they were elected, but I must not be deflected along those lines.
I end as I began. The present GLC leadership has brought the council into disrepute. There is a growing lack of confidence in London in the present GLC. More and more people are beginning to question its future. If the people who are new in control carry on in the way that they have in recent months, there is no doubt that they will create such a wave of revulsion among Londoners that they and the GLC will be swept away.
The passage of the Bill is no mere formality. There is over £1,000 million of capital, let alone the revenue, involved in expenditure for the GLC in the Bill. The Bill, the money provided for in it and the policy of the GLC should be given careful scrutiny. Parliament has a duty to try to protect Londoners from the excesses of the incompetent, doctrinaire, Bennite-Marxists who for the time being hold sway in County Hall.

Mr. John Fraser: The Bill involves expenditure of about £1 billion and I wish to ask whether a number of items of expenditure, of great importance to my constituents or to my fellow citizens in Lambeth, are included in the Bill, and if they are not, to give the reasons why I think that they should be.
I come first to a subject mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), refuse transfer stations. 'The GLC has declared Greater London to be a nuclear-free zone. Some people in my constituency would like to see their roads made rubbish-free zones. I am referring in particular to a road called Shakespeare Road, which is a residential area.
In 1977 a Tory GLC decided that a residential road should be the site for what is called a refuse transfer station. The station is run by a private enterprise that is not contracted to do the work of local authorities. Lorries arrive with mostly builders' rubble, which is dumped opposite residential accommodation, and rather larger lorries come and collect it and take it to infill sites. It is licensed by the GLC under the Control of Pollution Act.
The trouble for residents is that there are lorries corning in and out of the site from about 7.30 in the morning to about 5.30 at night. Ther is a great deal of traffic noise, dust and inconvenience. My constituents want something done about it. Yesterday I met a number of residents, led


by their local councillor, Joan Walley, and some of the contractors. To my amazement, I learned that the GLC—a refuse disposal authority for Greater London, a strategic planning authority for the whole of London, the authority that has the task of licensing refuse transfer stations, an authority of that magnitude and with resources that in this Bill alone involve £1 billion—appears to have identified not one site throughout the whole of Greater London as a suitable refuse transfer station. We need more than one refuse station for Greater London—probably one for each borough.
It is wrong that an authority cannot identify the right kind of site in the right kind of area. That is its duty as a strategic planning authority. Is some of the money under the Bill to be allocated for that purpose? Can the GLC identify a site that would be suitable and would not lead to disadvantage and a reduction in the quality of life for the many who have to suffer the flow of lorries and rubbish in that part of my constituency?
In the Bill, £30 million is set aside for planning and industry. I wish to raise a problem that only illustrates a problem faced by many hon. Members. In my constituency is a street called Rothschild Street which is in the middle of an industrial development area, the plan for which will be confirmed after a public inquiry that takes place shortly.
I am not against industrial development. The time has long passed when we were opposed to industrial development in a mainly residential area. We have learnt that one of the things that can beggar our cities, particularly our inner cities, is the loss of employment, particularly from small firms. I have no objection to development at all, nor have the occupants of that area.
I do not want to spend a lot of time on an individual constituency case, but there is one that illustrates the problem. I went to the house of a family in my constituency of Sunday morning. At the end of their garden—which is only about three or four yards long—is a huge storage tank of bituminous liquid, on top of which is a pump which works up to 24 hours a day. On top of that, almost on a level with the bedroom windows, is an inspection gantry, and rising above that is a large black pipe carrying hot bituminous liquid to a process in another part of the factory. That is all perfectly lawful, although it may be dangerous. However, the family and the other people who own houses in that road do not want to look out of their windows each day on such a development.
That area is zoned for industrial redevelopment. Because their homes are blighted by industry on their doorstep and by planning proposals, all that those people want to do is to be able to sell their homes. It is wrong that they should have to wait for a planning proposal to be confirmed after a public inquiry. The GLC, with its powers to provide money for industrial redevelopment and planning, should provide money to buy people out of such blighted homes. If the GLC is not willing to do that, the Government should be willing to authorise the provision of funds in such cases of hardship. I hope that I shall have a favourable response, either from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North who is presenting the GLC's case, or from the Minister.
I turn to what I believe to be an abuse of the powers of the House by the London Transport Executive. Some years ago a London Transport Bill was brought to the House

asking for powers to redevelop a bus garage in my constituency at the bottom of Knights Hill. I was opposed to that Bill. However, I was able to negotiate with the Bill's sponsor so that those people who were adversely affected by that London Transport redevelopment—perhaps their homes were likely to be acquired—would be rehoused in the same area and that if their homes were blighted by the development they would be purchased. The London Transport Executive which presented the Bill gave me adequate undertakings and I was satisfied.
Now, some years later, it transpires that in the exercise of the statutory powers that Parliament conferred, the London Transport Executive must acquire parking spaces for about 60 cars for members of its staff. Apparently, it is all right for members of the public to travel on buses, but not for members of London Transport's staff.
It is wrong that the site being chosen for parking space for West Norwood bus garage is a site of about 30 garages used by residential occupiers of the immediate neighbourhood.
When the Bill to provide powers of compulsory acquisition for a garage development was presented to Parliament, none of those points was mentioned. It is wrong that a statutory authority should come to the House asking for powers for a specified purpose, deposit plans in the House, seek undertakings and understandings from hon. Members, and then, when the development takes place, proceed in a different way. It wants to do that because of the planning requirements of the local authority.
It is wrong that those who suffer from the enterprise are those who had little part to play in the original proposals, who were not aware what would happen to their residential garages, and who are gravely disadvantaged by what will take place.
I hope that I will be told that at least concern about the London Transport development will be conveyed to it and that it will seek other ways to obtain parking space for its workers.
Lastly, I want to turn to the vexed question in Lambeth of the sports and recreation centre. There is a vote in the Bill for recreation and the arts of £6·4 million. In the past few days we have heard a great deal about Versailles. In the 17th and 18th centuries Versailles almost bankrupted the French nation. The sports and recreation centre is likely, if not to bankrupt, severely to impoverish the citizens of Lambeth. Indeed, if Louis XIV had been born not in France but in Lambeth and had had to choose an alternative to Versailles, I think he would have chosen Lambeth's sports and recreation centre. I am reliably informed that it will cost more than Versailles to build and most certainly more than Versailles to maintain.
In case anyone believes that I am being critical of a Labour council, the decision to set about this expensive enterprise was taken by a Conservative council in Lambeth. We hear a great deal about knights in Lambeth. At the council meeting that decided on the enterprise Ted Knight was not present. The only knight present was a baronet known as Sir George Young.
The enterprise is a matter of regal extravagance. The designers employed by the Conservative council of which the Minister was a member at the time decided that they would build a sports and recreation centre with a massive swimming bath not on the ground floor but on the second or the third floor. One can imagine the increase in construction costs that occurred as a result of that. Rumour


has it that the swimming bath may now be unsafe even before it has been filled with water as a result of being put so high.
The Conservative local authority at the time negotiated with a firm called Tarmac. The firm told the local authority that it would carry out the scheme without profit. It was a cost-plus scheme, placed to tender. The original estimate for the centre to be privately constructed by Tarmac was £2·7 million. Tarmac's work was catastrophic in terms of industrial relations, speed and cost. Eventually, the local authority had to negotiate its way out of the scheme, having spent between £2·7 million and £3 million.
The scheme was then placed to contract with the Lambeth direct works department at a new tender figure of £7·1 million—that is a good deal higher than the original estimate. The figure is now climbing towards £10 million cost. I have examined some of the recent estimates and I find that another £2 million or £3 million is likely to be added so that the total cost of the sports and recreation centre will he about £14 million in actual expenditure together with capital costs running from 1971, when the hon. Gentleman's council had something to do with it, up to 1983 when the scheme will be finished.
When the scheme is finished we will have spent about £14 million. The annual interest charges will be about £2 million a year. I understand that the running costs will be about £2 million a year. So when I say the scheme was more expensive than Versailles I hope no one will accuse me of exaggeration. The cost to ratepayers before subsidy to maintain the centre will be a rate of 7p in the pound. That will impoverish Lambeth.
The owner of a property with a rateable value of £300 will pay £21 a year for the maintenance of the sports centre. The terrible impoverishment and burden that the centre places on Lambeth was recognised by the former leader of the council in Lambeth, Mr. Ted Knight. He discussed with Mr. Ken Livingstone, the leader of the GLC, the possibility of the sports centre, which is 'likely to bankrupt Lambeth, being taken over by the GLC. I should like to have an assurance that the GLC will consider taking over the sports centre. I should like to see it partly taken over by the GLC because of the massive financial burden that is imposed on the ratepayers of Lambeth. I make no secret of that.
However, there is a second principle. The sports and recreation centre will provide about 39 different types of activity, ranging from acrobatics to yoga. The centre will be so massive that it could provide a regional sports centre for South London. If central Government and the Greater London Council are prepared to devote large sums of money to complexes such as Covent Garden, the Royal Festival Hall or the National Theatre—I have not yet been to the National Theatre but it strikes me that one would need to go to a course at Morley College to learn how to even book the tickets there—I do not see any reason why equally large sums of money should not be devoted to projects such as Lambeth sports and recreation centre which provides, at the other end of the scale, activities and recreation for ordinary working-class people. I make a plea to the Greater London Council to continue those discussions which were started by Councillor Knight to get out of the most gigantic financial mess which was created by this expenditure so improvidently embarked upon in the first place by the Minister.

Mr. Stuart Holland: There has been a notable lack of address by hon. Members to the issues raised by the Bill, and I shall briefly seek to remedy at]east part of that.
Criticisms have been made by some hon. Members, for example, of the expenditure of moneys for the creation of industrial employment. Criticisms have also been made by them of post-war regional and urban development policies on the ground that those have been against the interests of London. It is quite important to set the record straight on the matter. If we take, for example, the industrial development certificates which have been highly criticised in recent years a:; shifting jobs out of London, studies of the effects of those IDCs showed that, in fact, only about 5 per cent. of applications made for such certificates in the South-East of England over a given test period were refused. So we are talking about refusals involving only about one-twentieth of the projects concerned.
By contrast, the Canning Town study showed that more than half of the jobs lost in industry in that area over more than 10 years have been through the outflow of only half a dozen large companies, and that migration from London had been either to new towns or to development areas or abroad. This is one of the main issues which London faces in employment terms, because one of the biggest problems posed for medium-sized firms in inner city areas is the size and market share of big business. It is critically difficult, for infant enterprises as for infant industries, to be assured that they can get through adolescence to gain the stength to survive into adulthood. It is widely recognised not only throughout Europe but in the United States and, not least, in Japan that firms at this critical size need external assistance and support if they are to survive, quite apart from flourish.
It is very much in the spirit of that kind of assistance and intervention that this Bill is proposing powers for spending on industrial employment creation. I strongly recommend it to the House, since some hon. Members have spoken in this debate about getting jobs back to London. Those big businesses which have moved out will not come back to London, partly because of constraints on location and sites, and partly because their more recent investment has been elsewhere.
So we have to talk about two main dimensions to an industry and employment policy. One must be the defence of those firms which are threatened with failure under an acidly severe economic climate, with falling sales in a period of depression. Secondly, we must seek to promote and reinforce success in those small and medium-sized firms which otherwise would not have much chance of success in this hostile climate. It is in precisely those areas that the proposals for the Greater London Enterprise Board and the proposals recommended by the employment committee of the GLC are admirable, are supported by international experience, and offer some promise both for the protection of jobs and job creation in the London area.
Not only will the council be contributing to the funding of the local corporation development agencies, it will also be ready to give financial assistance and joint venture assistance to firms in the private sector that could otherwise have been faced with difficulty. That is to avoid the euthanasia of the small-time entrepreneur in major inner city areas. It is paralleled by interesting and positive new developments in such areas as the West Midlands,


where the West Midlands Enterprise Board is trying to do the same thing. It is in the same spirit as the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, only more so, in that progress here is focused on enterprise rather than simply on environmental, recreation or land improvements. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) is leaving the Chamber.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: My hon. Friend has had to answer a call of nature. He asked me to tell the hon. Gentleman that as he thought that he would make that very point.

Mr. Holland: I have other comments in store for the hon. Gentleman when he returns. My regret in this context is that he claimed that he stood by and defended the manifesto of the Labour Party at the last elections. It was for both national and regional enterprise boards. That is precisely what is being advanced by the GLC now. The joint venture formula and the co-operative development formula is matched by an extremely important proposal, which is that the marketing of such firms, especially their overseas marketing, should be assisted by a London agency rather than many small firms being left on their own.
There are small and medium-sized firms that do not have the capacity to send a specialised export representative either to Scandinavia or to Latin America, or to other world markets.
I trust and hope that the Greater London Enterprise Board will be able to build on the possibility of providing export representation in key foreign markets for small and medium-sized firms in the London area, not least as, under the free working of the market, we have seen from the British Export Trade Research Organisation's study that, whereas between them the Germans and the Japanese have between 10 and 11 permanent export representatives in key markets, British firms on average have either one person or no one. To pursue a cricketing metaphor, the organisation said that it was strange to hope to win in world markets against a German or Japanese 11 when we could field no one or only one person. It is in that capacity that the Greater London Enterprise Board could be significant, even with a minimal team, if it represented London enterprises in world markets.
I trust that the sums concerned in the Bill will not be considered inordinate or out of scale to the task, granted the extent to which London and particularly inner London are suffering from major unemployment levels.
Transport and housing have also been referred to. It is of great interest that the main, clearest and dominant issue in the GLC election campaign was that of transport—the policy of "Fares Fair". While many people may previously have thought that the Labour Party was exaggerating by recommending either a reduction or the abolition of the powers of the House of Lords, the British public have had no better example than the fate of the "Fares Fair" policy of why the powers of the second Chamber or that of certain Law Lords, in relation to this House, should be restricted. We have geriatric judges deciding how London's transport should be run, rather than the relationship between electors and local councillors being recognised in the way that the Secretary of State for Transport, in a statement to this House, interpreted the Transport (London) Act in 1969.

On housing, the tragic disbandment of the GLC's strategic housing capability means that any real policy of mobility from centre to periphery is now impossible. There used to be 2,500 or more transfers from Lambeth each year. The fact that that movement has now virtually ground to a halt is a prime reason why my constituents face real problems.
Finally, I suggest that the part of the speech of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford in which he tried to excite himself with visions of the flames of Marxist revolution should be addressed, if not consigned, to item 4(b) of the schedule dealing with refuse disposal.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) did not address his speech to the Bill, as every item with which my hon. Friend dealt related to the proposals contained in the Bill. While I am content to hear criticism in the House I believe that it should be generously and accurately made. The hon. Member for Vauxhall may disagree about the length of my hon. Friend's speech, but he will see from Hansard that it cannot be argued that my hon. Friend did not address himself to the Bill, as every topic with which he dealt was an item of expenditure covered by the Bill. Over the years, Members of the House have tried to be generous to one another even when they disagree. I therefore wished to put on record the inaccuracy of the hon. Gentleman's accusation.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall touched briefly on a part of the Bill that I regard as scandalous and on which I shall concentrate as it is a vital subject. On many occasions, I have raised in the House the problems of housing in my constituency. When the transfer of housing was being dealt with, I tried to persuade the Government that their move was mistaken. Schedule 1 gives a figure for housing of £91 million for a full year and some £56·7 million for the next six months. That sounds a great deal of money until one recalls the time when we argued against the transfer of GLC properties. In those days, of course, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) was at the Department of Health and Social Security, but his predecessor most courteously discussed and listened to my arguments against that policy.
It was decided to take a sample of 2,000 GLC properties that were to be transferred in order to ascertain how much money would be needed by the boroughs to bring those properties up to a reasonable standard. Before that period, which must have been August or September 1980, it had been argued that no money would be required, that previous transfers had been undertaken voluntarily, and that there was therefore no need for any special treatment for the seven boroughs which were to have properties thrust upon them.
At that time, I drew attention to the problems of Hackney and to the fact that my borough was expected to take 17,000 transferred properties. I highlighted the condition of estates such as the Provost and Haggerston estates. I pointed out that the properties were in an appalling condition and that for Hackney borough council to take full responsibility for repairing them and bringing them up to the required standard of fitness would be too expensive. Finally, the Minister took heed and a sample of 2,000 properties was taken.


The discoveries that emerged were alarming. To his credit, the Minister responsible—the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg)—decided that the sample was insufficient and that a sample of 5,000 should be taken. By January 1981, analysis of that larger sample had shown conclusively that the properties were in a desperate state and that it would cost a great deal for the boroughs to take them over and bring them up to a fit state.
During the discussions, there were arguments as to what was a fit state. Finally, it was decided that £50 million over 10 years would be required to allow the boroughs that were the receivers of those properties to spend £1,250 a unit each year to bring them up to the fit standard. The Minister will recall that I objected strongly that it could not conceivably be right in relation to the 17,000 properties that would be affected in my part of Hackney.
I provided examples of estate after estate, both old and new, including properties that had been converted. I said that it was nonsense to believe that it would only take £1,250 each to bring the properties to a fit state. Moreover, that reckoning excluded the communal parts of the estates such as the lifts and the roofs where, every week, people discover that their goods are destroyed by the amount of water that comes through. I said that three or four times the amount of money that had been estimated would be required if we were to put those properties into decent repair.
I went further and pointed out to the Government that not only did the amount of money appear to be insufficient but that the GLC did not even know what its property was. Not only was it ignorant of the condition of the properties but it did not even know whether it owned them. I gave the Government many examples of that. I said that it was quite wrong to try to make 1 April of this year the date for transfer and that the council could not conceivably do the things that needed to be done to achieve a smooth transfer. I pleaded with the Government not to allow the transfer on that date.
With hindsight, we see only too well the chaos that has resulted in Hackney from the transfer of GLC property, because now no transfers of tenants are taking place. One keeps petitioning the council to permit the transfer of tenants of constituents who are requesting transfers for the most desperate reasons. The council replies that it has stopped the transfers because the housing department is in chaos and the council is unable to cope. I said in the House in March that Hackney borough council had enough housing problems of its own with many properties that fall below standard. I said that it would be impossible for the council to assimilate a further 17,000 properties that are in an appalling state, especially with the lack of knowledge that surrounds them.
Now the council writes to me, but it is a bit late in the day. No doubt the constituents of the hon. Members for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) and Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Roberts) are suffering the same problems because we must all deal with the same housing department.
The Minister will also recall that I complained bitterly to him about the mobility scheme. I intervened earlier when my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) said—I commend his words—that the Minister is extremely likeable and that we feel he does a good job. I do not dissent from that opinion but I disagree with the Minister when he tells me that the mobility

scheme is working. I send him letter after letter and case after case and now finally he tells me that he is sorry, but that the scheme does not seem to be working in Hackney. That is what I told him in the first place.
No doubt the Minister will tell me that Hackney has only 1 per cent. of the total lettings in any one place and that they are over-subscribed. That is what I say. Had we had the 250,000 homes available through the GLC for letting, we would have done much better. I do not argue that matters used to be better, but there would have been a much better chance of our constituents being rehoused. Now the Minister says that Hackney seems to get the short end of the stick but that is because so many Hackney people wish to move to Loughton, Debden or Ongar. That is what I predicted. It is not for the Minister to tell me that the mobility scheme is working, because I know that my hon. Friends are in the same position. If it is working well, I wish to know where.
The Minister Kindly sent me some booklets and said that I should tell my constituents to read them. They say that the tenant should apply to his council to be nominated to another area. If he is nominated, that borough council will be responsible for inviting him to see a property. That sounds good, except that the first obstacle, if one asks to be nominated to Hackney council, is that it is oversubscribed. In the end, tenants are not being nominated.
The lucky people in my constituency who were nominated to the GLC before 1 April and who were patiently waiting for their transfer, have now been told by Hackney council that all bets are off because of the chaos caused by the transfer of GLC properties. The council has decided that there: will be no more nominations pending a resolution of the chaos. Now we have the position that someone who has waited patiently for two to three years, who has been nominated to somewhere in Essex and who has been moving up the priority list has suddenly had his nomination withdrawn. The nomination will be reassessed in Hackney and not in the other borough. Someone who was formerly high on the list will now find his case reassessed on a different basis and may be further down the list because Hackney borough council has decided that homeless people take priority.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that the two principal arguments upon which he has embarked are closely enmeshed? It would cost millions of pounds to refurbish, for example, the Trowbridge estate, where people are driven to desperation because of fungus, dampness and other miseries that seem incapable of solution. Does not one thing build upon the other?

Mr. Brown: That is correct. A group of Hackney tenants passed a resolution condemning the GLC for what has happened. It is the Minister's responsibility.
In a joint report of the housing, finance and general purposes and staff committees of the GLC published on 15 February 1982, the Minister will find postulated the position that we now face as a result of his activities. It states:
The detailed effects of this very low allocation can be summarized in the following proposals which give priority to the renovation programmes: (1) The Council can only start new building schemes (beyond those in contract) on a handful of sites, totalling perhaps only 300 dwellings instead of the 1,500 proposed; (2) There will be no more new seaside and country homes schemes".
I saw two constituents this evening, whom I referred to the Minister and his predecessor. They wished to leave


their mobile homes in my constituency and to move to other mobile homes in Hammersmith. Hammersmith Council cannot help them because it has said that it would rather demolish them than let them. The man is in his eighties and his sister is in her seventies. They are capable people and they now want to go to a seaside home if they cannot go to Hammersmith. I asked the right hon. Gentleman what I could tell Mr. Hutchinson and Mrs. Bracey. The right hon. Gentleman replied saying "I cannot help you. I do not know." Due to the Government's activities that have been imposed upon it, the GLC is saying that there will be no more new seaside and country homes schemes. Did the Minister agree that with the GLC? He has seen the proposal in the Bill and it is clear that he knew that these schemes would be stopped.
It continues:
No new home loans will be made.
Does the Minister support that? Are the Conservative Government supporting that concept? One of my constituents saw me again this evening because he wants to buy his home in Stoke Newington. I had to tell him that I would be raising the matter tonight with the Minister. Has the Minister agreed that statement, that no new home loans will be made?
The document carries on:
Further aid to housing associations will stop.
Has the Minister agreed that with the GLC? I understand that the Minister supports the Bill, and I understand the collusion between the two Front Benches. They are as one on this. Does the Minister confirm that he is approving the money knowing that further aid to housing associations in London will stop?
Then:
The homesteading programme will cease.
Does he now agree to that after all we heard last year about homesteading and its value and virtues? He has now agreed with the GLC and the Opposition Front Bench to accept the Bill knowing that the result will be that the homesteading programme will cease.
It continues:
No new housing action areas will be declared.
The Minister continually writes to me pointing out the importance of the housing action areas. He has told me that that is the one area where there will be no cutback. He knows the problems of Hackney. There are 15,000 families on the waiting list. Tonight he is saying that no new housing action areas in London will be declared by the GLC.
The next point is:
There will have to be a cut-back in the intended rate of spend on renovation, improvement and major technical problems.
That sounds technical unless one knows what it means. Further down the page it is explained:
It was planned to carry out £73 million of work in this area"—
that is renovations, improvements and major technical programmes—
which is badly needed and is a commitment in transfer of estate terms.
That was the figure the Minister gave me as the figure that would be spent on the properties that were transferred foolishly on 1 April. The hon. Gentleman persuaded the House to accept the order that enabled the transfer to take place on the basis that the necessary money would be

available. The Bill states specifically that it is impossible to allocate more than £60 million. That is £13 million short of the agreed programme.
The GLC acknowledges that the London borough councils will feel some sense of disappointment. Undoubtedly they will, and their sense of disappointment will be the keener because they will realise that the Government have deliberately walked away from an undertaking. The Minister will be in breach of the undertaking that he gave me. I am becoming used to such things happening to me, but what is more serious is that he gave a commitment to the House.
How can he justify walking away from that commitment? It seems that the sum of £91 million was arrived at because the Minister agreed and conspired with the GLC to make it impossible to do the work that is necessary—[Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), the Government Whip, is tapping his watch. If he attended my surgeries and heard of the misery that my constituents are suffering, he would understand why I wish to draw these matters to the attention of the House. The hon. Gentleman will support the Bill in the knowledge that the Minister has defrauded me and the House. He promised that the money would be spent—it would have been the minimum amount—and now it will not be spent.
It is no good the Minister smiling about this. This is a serious matter. The Minister gave me an undertaking following the one given by his predecessor. He introduced an order to enable the transfer to take place. It is outrageous that he should now—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Southgate continues to make interjections from a sedentary position. I do not know whether he wishes to intervene. I have not been speaking for very long and I wish to address the House on a matter of great urgency for my constituents. Once this opportunity has passed I shall never be able to take up this issue again.
I wish to draw the attention of the House, my constituents and the world at large to the fact that the Minister gave me and the House an undertaking. When a Minister gives an undertaking we expect it to be honoured. When I was told that a sum had been provided to enable Hackney borough council to carry out repairs to its GLC transferred property, I expected that undertaking to be honoured. The Minister is privy to the relevant documentation and he is responsible for the decision not to spend the money as he promised he would.
I had no intention of dividing the House but I now intend to do so because I wish to see how the Minister will respond. It is outrageous that he has agreed to allow the Bill to be enacted in the full knowledge that he has cheated my constituency. I have much more to say but suffice it to say I want an answer from the Minister.

Mr. Ted Graham: The House will understand my inability to make the valid contribution that London deserves from the official Opposition on a major Bill for London. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) and his hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) have taken up more than half the time that was made available for the debate. They have had the effrontery to ask question after question of the Minister and of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), the sponsor of the Bill, and to expect the answers to be


produced in the remaining few minutes. They have treated the House with contempt and I intend to treat their contributions with the contempt that they deserve.
The Opposition welcome the Bill. It is needed and London will take a lesson from the behaviour of the two hon. Members. They have been a thorough disgrace to the Social Democratic Party and to the House.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I intervene briefly to give the House the Government's view of the Bill. Unlike most London debates in which I have taken part, this has been less of a debate and more of a monologue. As the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) has said, it was extremely selfish of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) to appropriate to himself roughly half the time that was available.
The Government in no way wish to hold up this Bill. The GLC, like any other local authority, is subject to the controls on capital expenditure in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. The Council is unique in that, since the time of the London Government Act 1933, both it and its predecessors have presented to Parliament for approval an annual money Bill specifying the amount of prescribed expenditure and expenditure it can undertake during the current financial year and the following six months. This arrangement has been modified but not superseded by the controls in the 1980 Act. The GLC does not escape the overall control of local authority expenditure exercised by central Government. The provisions of the Bill are scrutinised and agreed before the Bill is deposited.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) for a specific assurance, and that is all that I would like to deal with in my intervention. I will try to deal with the other questions by correspondence. The hon. Member asked for an assurance that there would be no adverse effect on the GLC's capital spending power next year as a result of its enforced lending to London Transport last year. Approval of next year's Bill will rest with the House, but I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will not oppose the council depositing next year's Bill in the form that protects it from suffering a penalty on capital expenditure as a result of last year's lending to London Transport.
I reject the allegation made by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) that I or my predecessor misled the House. I regret that I cannot answer all the detailed questions that he posed for the reason that he has not left me the time in which to do so.
I commend the Bill to the House and say that it is consistent with the Government's overall strategy towards local government.

Mr. Stallard: May I try to reply to some of the points raised by one or two hon. Members who have spoken. I regret that insufficient time is left to reply to the large number of questions that were put to me by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and by his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). I should like to have had more time to discuss the matter in detail with the hon. Member

for Erith and Crayford and to explain to him what are the real reasons for the money Bill rather than those he seemed to think existed For this kind of debate.
The House has listened to an extremely enlightening, if that is the right word, and, in part, interesting debate. There were parts of it that were absolutely the province of the local authority chamber or the GLC at best. Certainly they related not to the money Bill but to a wide variety of other aspects of the Greater London Council's general work as well as the London Transport Executive. In no way could we pass off a debate on the revenue estimates as a debate on the money Bill. It is a complete travesty of the reasons for the debate on the money Bill. Discussion on capital estimates should not be used in that way.
As I said, many points were raised in the course of the debate to which I would dearly love to reply, but it is obvious that time will rule that out. All I can say to hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel)—who raised the first question on arts and recreation—is that I would dearly have loved to give him a detailed reply. He took the trouble to find the statistics, but because of the time taken by members of the SDP in making their speeches it appears that I shall not he able to give the hon. Member for Twickenham the reply that his question so rightly deserved.
All I can say to the hon. Member and to all those other hon. Members who raised extremely important, interesting and relevant points is that I have taken note of them I will take them away and will try to reply directly in conversation with those hon. Members; or, if that is not possible, I will try to make sure that in conjunction with the officers at the Greater London Council a reply is sent to those hon. Members who have shown a genuine interest in the affairs of Greater London Council and who are trying to take part in a constructive debate on the Greater London Council Money Bill.
I hope that the House will allow the Bill to proceed to its next stage and that eventually we shall get the Royal Assent before the time has expired.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 113,Noes 5

Division No.228]
[10 pm


AYES


Amery,Rt Hon Julian
Davis,Terry(B'ham,Stechf'd)


Atkins,Roben(PrestonN)
Deakins.Eric


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Dormand,Jack


Barnett,Guy(Greenwich)
Dorrell,Stephen


Bennett,Andrew(St'kp'tN)
Dunn,Robert(Dartford)


Berry, HonAnthony
Emery, Sir Peter


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Evans,John(Newton)


Boscawen,HonRofcert
Eyre,Reginald


Braine,SirBernard
Field,Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fisher, SirNigel


Bright,Graham
Flannery.Martin


Brittan,Rt. Hon. Leon
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brooke, Hon Peter
Foster, Derek


Brown,Michel(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Foulkes,George


Buchan,Norman
Fraser,J.(Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Budgen,Nick
Fraser, Peter(South Angus)


Butler, Hon Adam
Garel-Jones,Tristan


Cadbury,Jocelyn
Goodhew,SirVictor


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Goodlad, Alastair


Clarke,Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Graham, Ted


Cocks,Rt Hon M.(B'stol S)
Gray,Hamish


Cook,Robin F.
Greenway, Harry


Cope,John
Gummer,JohnSelwyn


Cowans,Harry
Hamilton,W.W.(C'tral Fife)


Cryer,Bob
Harrison,Rt Hon Walter


Davis, Clinton(HackneyC)
Haynes, Frank




NOES


Cartwright,John



Ogden,Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Ron Brown and


Sandelson, Neville
Mr. James Wellbeloved.


Wainwright.R.(colnev)

Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Mudd,David


Holland,S.(L'b'th,Vauxh'll)
Murphy,Christopher


HomeRobertson,John
Nelson,Anthony


Homewood,William
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hunt, David(Wirral)
Parry,Robert


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Pendry,Tom


King, Rt Hon Tom
Prescott,John


Lang, Ian
Price, C.(Lewisham W)


Lawrence, Ivan
Proctor, K.Harvey


Lee,John
Race, Reg


Leighton, Ronald
Rhys Williams,SirBrandon


Lyell, Nicholas
Richardson,Jo


McKay,Allen(Penistone)
Ridley,Hon Nicholas


McWilliam,John
Sheldon,Rt Hon R.


Marland,Paul
Silkin, Rt Hon J.(Deptford)


Marlow,Antony
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C.(Dulwich)


Mather,Carol
Skinner,Dennis


Mayhew,Patrick
Snape, Peter


Mikardo, Ian
Spearing,Nigel


Mitchell,Austin(Grimsby)
Stallard,A.W.


Moate, Roger
Stevens,Martin


Monro,Sir Hector
Stewart,Ian(Hitchin)

Stradling Thomas,J.
Waller,Gary


Straw,Jack
Watkins,David


Tilley,John
Weetch, Ken


Tinn,James
White, Frank R.


Trippier,David
Winnick,David


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Young, SirGeorge(Acton)


Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.



Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wainwright,E.(Dearne v)
Mr. Alfred Dubs and


Wakeham,John
Mr. Frank Dobson.


Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed

Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure

The second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir William vanstraubenzee): I beg to move,
That the Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
As I understand the business motion to which the House agreed earlier today, the maximum of three hours now available to us can be allocated between this measure and the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure which is to follow. If it is the wish of the House to dispose of this measure briskly, the time then available can be used to debate the subsequent measure. I say that because I am well aware that the subsequent measure is the one in which many hon. Members are particularly interested.
I hope that this modest measure will be seen as only one stage in a continuing process. It is neither the first nor the last. For a number of years, the Church of England has increasingly and rightly provided for the retirement of those who have served it very devotedly in a full-time capacity. In a sense, the provision has over the years been almost more generous, as it should have been, than its counterpart in the lay world, because the combination of stipends and what is generally called tied houses makes it more difficult for a man to provide for his retirement.
However, I hope that the House will not underestimate the burden that that places on the Church of England in general and on its members in particular. The 1981 report and accounts of the Church Commissioners have just been published and are available to hon. Members. They show that in that year expenditure on pensions was £17·9 million, or 19·7 per cent. of expenditure. That contrasts with £14·4 million in 1980.
The percentage increase in the Commissioners' general fund income spent on this provision has risen from 14 per cent. in 1971–72 to 28 per cent. in 1981. With effect from 1 April last, the Commissioners have agreed to increase the pension for full service from £2,500 a year to £3,060, and the lump sum payable on retirement after full service from £4,000 to £4,900.
I give those brief figures as a background to the measure and to explain that, although modest in itself, the measure is part of a continuing chain. I have no doubt that as time progresses the House will be asked to approve other measures.
As the proportion of the general fund income of the commissioners devoted to pensions increases, so the proportion devoted to stipends must, self evidently, decrease. That is why lay people are being required to take on an increasing proportion of the burden of the stipend of the working clergy, a burden which they take on splendidly but which progressively will be an increasing charge upon them.
The House will wish me to briefly explain the measures. Clause 1 seeks to extend the powers of the Commissioners, enabling them to make loans to the pensions board. The important difference between loans and grants is that loans are made out of capital, whereas grants are made out of general funds.
Clause 2 extends loans to such persons who have either attained retiring age or will have in three years. The key

to that is "within three years". That, as I am sure that the House will understand, is a very helpful provision for the man seeking to make provision for his retirement.
Clause 3 refers to "church workers". The present state of the law excludes clerks in holy orders, but in recent years it has been possible for a church worker who has been admitted to the church workers pension fund to be ordained thereafter, for example to the non-stipendiary ministry. He then finds that, because of the exclusion to which I have referred, his pension expectancy is reduced. That does not seem reasonable in present circumstances and that is why that matter is put right in the clause. Clauses 4 and 5 widen the powers of investment, bringing them into line with the majority of pension fund trustees.
This is a modest measure and I should like to express my appreciation, as did the legislative committee of the General Synod, to the standing council of the eccliastical committee for the suggestions that it made, and which we have incorporated and made part of the measure in clause 2(1). Its advice was very helpful.
The House will no doubt like to know how the General Synod dealt with this matter and I am able to report that final approval, the equivalent of our Third Reading, in February 1982 went through with no votes cast against it. Modest measure though this may be, it is one further step in the pension provision for those who devote themselves so selflessly to the service of the church.

Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman will recall a point raised by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) in the ecclesiastical committee, relating to the status and rights of the divorced wife of a clergyman and how she would be affected by this measure. Is he in a position to give an answer yet, or will we be receiving an answer after the debate?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I remember the point that was raised. There has been no opportunity for the matter to be incorporated in this measure, and I think that the hon. Gentleman would not have expected that. I appreciate that these are serious matters, but, if the hon. Gentleman casts his mind around the ordinary pension provision in the lay world, he will probably find that the way in which financial provision is made for a former wife in cases of this kind is not generally through the mechanism of the pension. It is by way of financial provision at the time of the divorce, although that is not universally so. The House knows that very real consideration is being given to all those matters. I think, for example, of the proposals for the cut-off procedures, and the rest.
This is part of something wider. I must reply by saying that there has been no opportunity for those matters to be discussed within Church of England circles since the matter was raised. However, I have no doubt at all that this is the sort of matter that must now be looked at. That is why I was so careful to make it clear that this is not the end. There are other matters yet to be considered and this will obviously have to be one of them.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I accept it when my hon. Friend says that this is not the end. I hope that he will agree that people are becoming increasingly concerned about the number of clergy marriages that are foundering. I hope that he will also accept that the analogy that he drew with the lay world is not entirely appropriate in this case. The House would


welcome an assurance from him that the synod and the commissioners will turn their attention at the earliest possible date to the whole position of the divorced wives of clergy.

Sir William van Straubenzee: My hon. Friend, who has a detailed knowledge of the Church of England, would not wish inadvertently to give the impression that this is a widespread problem. It is infinitely sad whenever it happens, in the lay world or in the clergy world. There are problems. The days when, without exception, the clergy wife shared her husband's life are somewhat diminished by the large number who, for perfectly proper reasons, now do another job.
I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he asks for in the sense that this is one of the matters which must now be looked at, although I would rather not be tied to a timetable. These are the sort of matters which, when a further measure comes before the House, must be seriously and carefully considered.
My modest experience in this field is that there is widespread and careful provision, usually through funds that are available at the discretion of, and under the control of, bishops. I appreciate that that is not the same thing as a statutory right.
One should not leave this subject without giving the impression that there is not infinite pastoral care and financial provision where appropriate on a diocesan basis.

Mr. Cormack: I do not want to over-emphasise the matter, but there are far more clergy marriages heading for the rocks and which have foundered than we would have believed possible a few years ago. Although my hon. Friend is entirely right, nevertheless I could produce examples—doublers other hon. Members could—of clergy wives who have been very badly treated. I could give details of one particular case where I had to come to the rescue myself. Had it not been for the fact that I was able to do so and that the woman concerned had private means, there would have been a real human tragedy. I know of at least a dozen similar cases.

Sir William van Straubenzee: That is an important point. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel free to let me have details, if he so desires. I have personal knowledge of one of the cases with which he has dealt. I appreciate the problem. At the moment, I am having to deal with the strict statutory provisions. I have answered as clearly and as directly as I can, but his point is helpful.

Mr. Field: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assurance that this is an increasingly important issue. Obviously several hon. Members look forward to his being able to report further on that matter.
However, my concern was not only about the sharing of pension rights. If I understood the point of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer), there are also the housing rights of a divorced wife of a clergyman. The difference between a clerical and a lay marriage is, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, that many lay people acquire a house during their marriage. Therefore, at the break-up of a marriage the proceeds of that house can be shared. The first provision that we are considering in the measure is earlier mortgage loans for retirement homes. I also understood the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) to be

concerned about the rights of the divorced wife to the new benefit or to the spread of the benefit that we are discussing tonight.

Sir William van Straubenzee: I hope to give the direct answer tonight with regard to the benefit that we are discussing. Such a former wife does not have a right. But as we progress—I cannot see into the future—to extend that kind of provision I can see that the possible interest of a former wife becomes a bigger factor. The reason why I cannot foresee such a thing is that this is dependent on expenditures. These are heavy commitments and I must not mislead the House into expecting major advances in a short time. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point. I do not brush it under the carpet and I shall ensure that it is carefully and sympathetically considered at the appropriate next stage.

Mr. Frank R. White: May I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) on the manner in which he has presented this amendment measure. The official Opposition welcome the initiative taken by the Church of England to provide more adequately for the retirement of the clergy, deaconesses and lay workers. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Church has always sought to ensure that its employees receive provisions comparable with the secular world, but the provisions of this measure go beyond the normal retirement provisions and can be said to be a positive example to other employers which I hope they will emulate.
I turn now to the divorced wives issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). He will recall that in the ecclesiastical committee the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) raised the issue and also agreed that despite the fact that he was not a member of the general synod he had not raised it at the general synod when the debate on this issue took place. I accept at once that the issue had come only recently to his attention. I would say that people reading of our proceedings and recognising the feeling of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and the hon. Member for Wokingham would probably provide a sympathetic ear to the hon. Member for Eye when he seeks to raise the issue at the next meeting of the general synod or at the appropriate time. In return, I am sure that the House would welcome some moves on that basis.
The problems of those required to live in job-related accommodation go far beyond the clergy. With the present cut-back in local authority housing schemes it may be that the Church of England is pointing to the radical way ahead. I welcome its radical approach 'to the problem which will benefit its employees. On behalf of the official Opposition I welcome the measures.

Mr. Harry Greenway: It is a few days now since the House discussed the remuneration of Members of Parliament and the pensions paid to them. It is within the general framework of that debate and following on what my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) said that I shall make a few remarks on this significant measure.
During the past few days it has been announced that clergy stipends are to be raised to £4,900 a year.


Therefore, the figure of £3,060 as the pension base is substantially over half the basic stipend now to be paid. If ever there were justice, this is it. What will be the position for clergymen, their wives and families if they are asked to live on such a low stipend? If we add to that the fact that pensions do not become payable in some circumstances until the age of 70, we are asking a great deal of that section of the community which has entered the profession, if I may call it a profession, and accepted God's call to minister in his Church but not for reasons of remuneration. Laymen and others concerned with these matters can push their self-sacrificing attitudes too far.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham will bear in mind, if the matter is raised in synod in future, that surely the age at which a pension is paid should be brought down. That is as important as paying as substantial a sum as possible. I accept that many clergymen today come into Holy Orders at a later stage in life than happened in the past. There are excellent clergymen in many parts of the country who have done other jobs in teaching, manual work, and so on, who come to the Church late in life—sometimes at a very late age. They may have worked in that capacity for only a few years by the age of 70, when they retire on pension. Might I ask my hon. Friend whether at that stage they retire on full pension? Or is there a graduated element to it?

Sir William van Straubenzee: It may be for the convenience of the House if I answer that question by way of an intervention. My hon. Friend is careful and assiduous in these matters. In taking the age of 70, he may have got into his mind the age of compulsory retirement for those to whom it applies—those who are affected by the appropriate measure after the time of its coming into force. However, I am happy to remind him that the pension age is now 65. It has come down progressively. It is another example of the way in which the Church of England has willingly and gladly taken on an increasing burden. It may help my hon. Friend if I remind him of that fact at this stage.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend. I chose to concentrate on those who go on to the age of 70, because they more or less have to do so, and that is a serious situation. Of course, the age of 65 is the age at which Members of Parliament receive their pension. In my opinion, that is a rather late age, and I am sure that those concerned are aiming to lower the age to 60, if possible, which would give parity with other professions. Let it be a voluntary matter. Let it be available from the age of 60. Let us aim at that as a matter of principle.
I want to express my concern for the many clergymen who feel obliged to work to the age of 70 and well beyond, for reasons of deprivation, because their stipends have been so low, and because they cannot take out a loan, even on the advantageous terms which have been mentioned and which are available. We know that many clergymen have to soldier on. They need such stipends as they can get, and the freehold of the house that goes with the job, for financial reasons. That is particularly sad, although I accept that this measure represents a considerable improvement in that respect.

Finally, on the subject of the length of service of many clergymen, it was remarkable to read in the Church Times the other day of two clergymen who died within 24 hours of one another—one, I think, was 97 and the other was 95. I do not think that they had been active recently, but one had continued until the age of 93. I do not suggest that he was compelled to do so, I do not know his personal circumstances, but I should like to pay tribute to the devotion that lies behind a life that is given to the selfless service of others.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I shall make two brief points, one of which echoes what my hon. Friend the: Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) said. I should hate to think that we ever discourage people from working beyond a specific age. I regret it if there is anything approaching a compulsory retirement age in the Church. One thinks of the splendid work that has been done by Members of this House, in the other place and in the Church by people who are well over three-score years and 10. We may frequently disagree with the views of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), but we admire him as a parliamentarian. That he spent his seventieth birthday talking through the night is a salutary reminder to us all.
I return to the point that I made in an intervention. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) for his sympathetic rejoinder. The synod should turn its attention to the problem of the divorced wives of the clergy soon as a top priority. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has enormous experience of Church politics. He rightly exercises his influence in the synod. We all admire and respect him for what he has done and for what he is. I hope that he will use his real influence to ensure that the matter is brought to the top of the agenda soon. Any marriage break-up is an occasion of great sadmess. The break-up of a clergy marriage can be a profound disturbance to a whole community. It is often found that the wife who is deserted and neglected has nothing to fall back on. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked about the clergy house. He received an honest answer, as we expect from my hon. Friend. However, that answer showed that the position is not good enough.
We are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) for raising the matter in the ecclesiastical committee. Several of us have seen tragic cases at first hand. The Church must recognise that this is a problem, even within itself and turn its sympathetic attention to it so that we have a measure that is as sensible as this one to deal with the problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham explained the provisions lucidly. We have come to expect him to be lucid. I welcome the provision and support it but we should regard it as one step along a road which we have not yet reached the end.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Hier Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Pastoral (Amendment) Measure

The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir William van Straubenzee): I beg to move,
That the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
I am aware that this is a more substantial measure, not only in size but in content, than the previous measure and that it involves matters that the House may wish to consider at greater length.
As with the previous measure, I should like briefly to set this amendment measure in perspective. The prime purpose of the 1968 measure was
to make better provision for the cure of souls.
It provided the Church at that time with administrative and quasi-judicial machinery designed to assist in that purpose. It provided a machinery for the creation of new parishes, the adjustment of boundaries, the creation of team and group ministries and the handling of the acutely difficult matter, which often raises very strong feelings, of redundant churches—all bound up with a careful and extensive process of consultation with interested parties.
In beginning our examination of the amendments measure, it should be made clear that the 1968 measure was a factor of the highest importance in fulfilling the mission of the Church to its own people and to the country as a whole. After 1955, particularly, the Church found itself in some cases with churches with no populations around them and in other cases with populations with no churches. The House may be interested to know that between 1 April 1969, when the pastoral measure came into force, and 31 March this year, 5,052 pastoral, redundancy and other schemes were passed under its provisions. It is not surprising, however, that a measure which came into force in 1969 requires adjustment in the light of experience. We are familiar with that need in the House, and it has been the experience of the Church of England with its own legislation.
The House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to go through every clause of the amendment measure, which covers a considerable amount of ground, but I will do my best to answer any questions. Perhaps I may, with permission, deal at the end of the debate with matters which require a reply. I shall concentrate at this stage on the two provisions upon which the ecclesiastical committee concentrated and on which it reported in the document which is available to hon. Members.
The first relates to clause 7, on page 3. Up to now, there has been an unfettered right of appeal to the Privy Council by anyone making written representations against a draft pastoral scheme. If the House agrees to the amendment measure, that right of appeal will be reduced in that, thereafter, such right of appeal will be exercisable only with the prior leave of the Privy Council. The Privy Council has already made it clear—and a particular judgment is quoted in the ecclesiastical committee's report—that in its judgment the grounds for appeal are already very limited.
Although I no longer serve on, and have not for some years served on, the appropriate committee of the Church Commissioners, I did so for a considerable number of years and I watched the extremely careful way in which the appeals procedure was operated and the great care that

was taken when the appeals were lodged with the Privy Council. While I mind very much about the right of the individual to appeal, I genuinely believe that the requirement to obtain leave will do no more than secure that expense and effort on the part of the would-be applicant are avoided in cases where it is obvious to the Privy Council that there is no chance of success. I hope that that might be a positive help to those concerned.
Some of us who practise, however modestly, in the law—I am not called to the Bar, which would be the appropriate branch in this case—have observed that in similar provisions the Court is liable to lean over backwards whenever there is any doubt and is likely to grant leave. They are broadly parallel provisions that are widely known in general law.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Can my hon. friend tell us how many people in a year have taken advantage of the unfettered right of appeal?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I shall try to give my hon. Friend some accurate figures. I do not wish to give the impression that there are hundreds each year. Hon. Members are always concerned about the individual, none more so than my hon. Friend. If only one person was cut out who should not be, the House would be deeply anxious.
That was the first of two matters that concerned the ecclesiatical committee. After careful consideration, it felt that it was a reasonable matter and it deemed it to be expedient. Then comes a difficult matter over which I must take some time. Part V of schedule 1 on page 42 concerns the comparatively narrow, but important and emotive, problem of a declaration of redundancy in respect of an existing church which is to be replaced by a new one. If the House agrees to the measure tonight, there will be a change in the law. The present law is that a scheme cannot provide for demoliton unless the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches issues a certificate. The new law will be that the decision to demolish will lie with the Church Commissioners, although they will be obliged to take into account the views of the Advisory Board. However, they will not be bound by those views. Somewhat exceptionally, but understandably, having given careful consideration to the matter, the committee divided. I do not wish to hide anything, so I can tell the House that 10 members expressed doubt about the provision and 11 accepted it.
I have no doubt that the views of the 10 doubtful members will be properly expressed on the Floor of the House. I put the case in favour of accepting the proposition.
It is fair to say that the provision now in the measure is more favourable than the law previously was to the original provisions of the Bridges Committee, from which this derives.
Secondly, the fact that the agreement between Church and State that has subsequently been arrived at, by which the Secretary of State for the Environment can intervene and order a non-statutory inquiry in contentious cases before demolition proceeds, is a new and important factor.

Mr. Frank Field: Unworkable, though.

Sir William van Straubenzee: If the hon. Gentleman will develop that point I shall seek to answer it.
That is a different position from that of 1968. I believe that it is a powerful sanction. It should be taken into


account and weighed carefully when deciding whether to accede to the provisions in schedule 1 to which I have drawn attention. I accept that they are matters of opinion and judgment. I respect the judgment of those who hold a different view from mine, but I am sure that we shall listen to each other's views.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I am not an expert in these matters as the hon. Gentleman is. Anxiety has been expressed to me, on behalf of a member of the Church of England, about the removal of the power of the veto of the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches, and that it is a retrograde step. The hon. Gentleman said that that occurred in the ecclesiastical committee and that its members divided on that point. I have read the original measure, the amendment and the explanation of the ecclesiastical committee. It is not clear to me what the reason is for removing—in the case that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned—the power of veto, especially in the case of churches of some architectural interest, of which there are a number. Will the hon. Gentleman say a little more on that point?

Sir William van Straubenzee: There are a variety of factors. One arises out of the careful inquiry into the working of the 1968 measure. The second is that there has been considerable anxiety expressed—not only from within the Church but also from the amenity society lobby; I say that respectfully and not as a term of abuse—at the cumbersome procedures as they exist. They have at times led, unfortunately, to vandalism. There is great difficulty in caring for a church that is under the scrutiny of the procedure about which we have been talking. It is perfectly true that the Secretary of State—as he is now entirely free to do in the appropriate cases—can order a non-statutory inquiry. We all know that those inquiries take time. The care of the church during that interim period is a considerable problem. That is one of the factors that has led the Church to look closely at the matter.
Sometimes—not in the House—it is implied that the Church of England consists entirely of Philistines who long to tear down any church that they can lay their hands on. If by good luck they managed to get their hands on a beautiful Fourteenth or Fifteenth century church, that is what they would do. There are as many lovers of beautiful churches in the Church of England as anywhere else. One of the problems is that they have to fulfil their mission to an existing and living church. This is one of the problems. It arose from a careful scrutiny of the workings of the 1968 measure by a working party.

Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman has presented to the House the argument that the advisory board will lose its veto and in place of that we shall have the non-statutory inquiry. Before he develops his argument further, will he comment on the board's comments, which are appended to the papers that we are debating, on the experience of the first statutory inquiry at Holy Trinity, Rugby? The advisory board informs us that
The long delays and heavy expenditure involved, and the cumbersome nature of the enquiry itself is likely to make all the bodies concerned exceedingly unwilling to have recourse to this method of saving buildings which ought not to be demolished.
That does not quite match the check that the hon. Gentleman has been describing to the House.

Sir William van Straubenzee: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Rugby inquiry was the first of its

kind. I accept that it is not on all fours with the provision that I am introducing. It is a good example of a non-statutory inquiry, yes, but it is not an inquiry into an issue of the sort to which I am referring. The Rugby inquiry took a long time and it was the first of its kind, but even if I assume that all subsequent inquiries are of similar length, does the hon. Gentleman not think that that in itself is a considerable brake upon an authority in the Church that is contemplating demolition?
The argument works both ways. If it is a constraint upon what I shall describe loosely as the amenity societies, it is equally a constraint upon the Church. I hope that on another occasion tae matter can be dealt with rather more expeditiously. If I were concerned from the other side of the fence, I should regard the hon. Gentleman's argument as a pretty powerful one if I contemplated what pressures and considerations would be in the minds of the Church Commissioners before they were to act.

Mr. Field: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House of by what method this safeguard will be triggered?

Sir William van Straubenzee: This is the safeguard—I hope that I am giving the accurate answer—that rests with the. Secretary of State for the Environment. It will be his decision, if we are talking about a listed building, whether to institute such an inquiry. My personal view is that the House is familiar with the pressures that are properly brought to bear upon a Secretary of State for the Environment, and which will continue for the time being. That is one of the reasons why I believe that this is a new and important safeguard that justifies the change in the law that I have sought to put before the House.

Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman referred to listed buildings. Is he saying that this protection will exist only for listed buildings?

Sir William van Straubenzee: Yes, that is what I am saying. I must give the facts as they are. It is hard to envisage that the sort of building with which we are all concerned would rot be a listed building. I find that a difficult proposition to envisage. The hon. Gentleman asked me a direct question and I wish to give him a direct answer. I draw his attention to the concordat entered into between Church and State.
I began my few remarks—which I must now draw to a conclusion—by seeking to put this matter into a wider setting. I end by dosing the same thing. If the House looks again at the report of the Church Commissioners, they will on page 24 find that, between 1969 and 1981, 839 churches were declared redundant; but 52 per cent. of them have been put to an alternative use and 21 per cent. of them have been preserved. However, that means that 27 per cent. of them have been demolished, a great many of them without any substantial opposition. I am entitled to give those figures to the House because at times the picture is perhaps unintentionally painted of every redundant church being torn down. To my certain knowledge, because I see something of it from the inside, enormous efforts are made fo find alternative uses, and it is fair to make the point that 52 per cent. of the 839 have been put to alternative use.
I imagine that it is that and other considerations that led to the General Synod, having considered this matter for a long time, with great care, at what we now term third


reading, accepting it without a vote against. I hope that that and other considerations will commend this measure to the House.

Mr. Frank R. White: The hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) has delicately and skilfully presented the case for approving the measure. If hon. Members believe that he has been extra cautious in outlining its details, may I assure them that it is not because of any official opposition threats; it is more likely to be because of a flanking movement caused by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack). The measure is non-controversial, as the hon. Member for Wokingham has said, but he will be aware that individual sections of it have given rise to some concern among Members, and I have no doubt that those Members will make their views clear in their own way.
I represent tonight the official Opposition view. It is not our intention to object to the measure. I should like to make a few personal comments. I accept that the point of the measure has to be seen in the wider context. No one in political life can doubt the necessity from time to time to adjust parliamentary boundaries, for instance, to meet population changes. Indeed many hon. Members are now concerned with boundary changes.
Likewise, the Church needs to have the machinery to deal with the problem of population drift and change when dealing with the creation of new parishes, new ministries, and, regrettably, with churches no longer required for worship.
Those points are not disputed. I understand the fears expressed by some hon. Members regarding the redundancy and demolition of churches. Indeed, on one occasion in the ecclesiastical committee I registered my support in a vote. The agreement outlined by the hon. Gentleman allowing the Secretary of State for the Environment to intervene and set up a non-statutory public inquiry is a valuable safeguard in this respect. I also appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman that, whilst 954 churches have closed since the 1968 pastoral measures came into effect over the past 20 years, many new forms of ministry such as non-stipendiary priests, a greater reliance upon readers and other lay workers, has led to the growing development of team and group ministries where the previously isolated vicar is now working in a partnership.
It was the feeling of a church in retreat, closing down and being demolished, despite the wishes of many parishioners, that motivated my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead. Against the figure of 954 closures must be set the team and group ministries, as well as 303 new churches opened since 1968 and 1,100 since the end of the Second World War.
The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West is a well-respected Member who brings an expertise to our debates in regard to national heritage. I readily acknowledge that to many, including with some notability the hon. Gentleman himself, the churches of England are a national heritage. They include many valuable and outstanding buildings of historical and architectural

interest. I read somewhere that some of them are described as sermons in stone, reflecting the age and the community in which they were built.
The possibility of some of these great treasures being consigned to the demolition hammer was enough to delay the measure in its passage through the ecclesiastical committee. The hon. Member for Wokingham gave assurances regarding this. For my part, and on behalf of the official Opposition, I accept those assurances, but I trust that those who read our debates and receive reports of the sittings of the ecclesiastical committee will study the progress of the measure since it left the synod in February 1981. I realise the feelings of the synod concerning the delay, but examination of the reasons will show that valuble lessons need to be learnt.
The synod must appreciate that on this issue many hon. Members who are members of the ecclesiastical committee had serious reservations about their role in approving the measure as it was presented. I am pleased to note that as a result of the normal channels, shall we say, informal discussions are taking place to try ensure that such a delay is not repeated. With that assurance, and bearing in mind the assurances given by the hon. Gentleman, I ask my hon. Friends to support the measure.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: This is a serious debate. There are several things that should be put on the record. None of them should be taken as in any way impugning the sincerity and integrity of my hon. Friend and Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee), nor the good intentions of those who introduced the measure into the General Synod and who backed it.
Had the ecclesiastical committee had the power to amend, the measure would not be before the House in its present form. It is equally true that if those of us who have profound misgivings, and who voiced them on the ecclesiastical committee, had been minded to do it, we could have ensured that many more hon. Members were present and there could well have been a Division as a result of which the measure might have been lost.
I do not propose to call a Division; I do not think that my hon. Friend— deliberately call him that—the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) proposes to call one either. But there are hon. Members who would certainly vote against the measure if there were a Division. If we had been so minded, and if other graver events had not occupied the attention of the House in recent weeks, there could have been quite a full Chamber and a vote. That would have been regrettable because many of us believe profoundly in the established Church of England and want to see it maintained, and its dignity and position in our national life enhanced.
We were deeply troubled by the insensitivity that lay behind what appeared to be an unnecessary bureaucratic zeal in the formulation and the continual pushing of this measure. My hon. Friend has given a lucid and honest account of the deliberations of the ecclesiastical committee. He referred to the 11–10 vote. He knows, because he took part in those debates, that among the 11 there were at least two or three very reluctant voters who, for the very best of reasons, decided to vote as they did but with their voices expressed their sympathy with those of us among the 10.
This is an unhappy state of affairs, and I hope that it will not be repeated. I hope that the deliberations that are shortly to take place between the appropriate committees of the General Synod and the ecclesiastical committee will lead to a wider understanding and a bridging of the gulf that undoubtedly exists between this place and the General Synod and the Church of England.
I cannot understand why the measures—we are talking about two parts of the measure—are necessary. I cannot accept that the system will be improved as a result of what is really a reduction in the right of the individual parishioner and the individual parish.
The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White), who is a notable churchman, referred to my interest in the heritage, for which I thank him. The House must realise that by an accident of history and by enormous good fortune the Church of England has within its guardianship and control the largest number of important buildings of architectural merit and historic interest that exist throughout the whole of Europe. Anything that can be seen as putting those structures at risk will inevitably cause disquiet in the ranks of those who regularly attend church on Sunday, and also in the wider community.
I can best illustrate that feeling with a personal anecdote. I was for some years a churchwarden of a parish in my constituency. The church was a notable local landmark and a greatly loved building. Suddenly we discovered that we had enormous problems of dry rot and we needed to appeal for what was a vast amount of money for such a small village—£10,000 or £20,000.
We knocked on every door in the parish one Sunday and in one day alone raised about a quarter of that amount. Most of the money was given not by those who regularly worship and who would be represented in the General Synod, but by those who are represented in this place and who regarded the building as part of their heritage. They may have been, to use the trite and common phrase, four-wheeler Christians—those who attend church in their prams for baptism, in a carriage for marriage and in a hearse for their funeral—but this, nevertheless, was the building that, in a sense, dominated their lives and they gave to it, willingly.
I do not think that the General Synod has been sufficiently aware of the enormous affection and regard with which the buildings of the Church of England are viewed by the multitudes who write "C of E" when they enter the Army or go to school, or who write nothing at all but look upon the local parish church as their church.
Anything that can apparently make the demolition of such a building more likely is to be viewed with concern. I happen to be a trustee of the Lincolnshire Old Churches Trust. I think of the church in Salmonby—not one of enormous architectural distinction or historic interest but a Victorian gothic church. The local people wanted to keep it, yet the decree was that it should be demolished. In spite of all the safeguards that presently exist, demolished it was. Great heart-searching and anguish was caused, but the church was gone.
It can never be brought back to life. Many of us believe that it should be legitimate to sanction the careful ruination of a church so that at least it can remain a landmark. Many of us believe that there is a virtue in moth balling a church so that if people come back into an area because of population movements, it can be brought back into use. However, if it is demolished it is gone for ever.
In so far as this measure makes it easier for churches to be demolished, it strikes at the very heart of what many people regard as the most important aspect of the Church of England.
I am very concerned indeed that the views of the advisory board have been flouted. My hon. Friend could say with absolute truth that it changed its mind, was somewhat indecisive and was late in the day in lobbying the Ecclesiastical Committee. All that would be entirely true and utterly justifiable, but those who have been charged with giving advice on these issues decided after the most careful deliberation and real heart searching—such as the 11 who voted for this part of the measure—that this should not be expedient. They had a profound influence upon us. I only wish that their second thoughts had been taken more carefully into account by the General Synod.
The last thing 1 want is to see this measure written down as a landmark on the road to disestablishment. I choose my words carefully. If a greater sensitivity is not shown by the General Synod in the future, this could be seen as a significant landmark on the road to disestablishment. That would grieve me enormously, as I know it would the hon. Members for Birkenhead and Bury and Radcliffe.

Mr. Greenway: Not me.

Mr. Cormack: Perhaps not my hon. Friend. That is a perfectly reasonable point of view, which doubtless will again be debated in the House in the future. But to those of us who regard the twin pillars of Church and State as being of some importance in the maintenance of the fabric of civilisation in this country as we know and love it, it is something rather significant.
As I say, I shall not vote against the measure tonight. I appreciate my hon. Friend's sensitivity. I appreciate more than I can say the candour with which he explained the procedure of the ecclesiastical committee. However, I hope that he will recognise, perhaps a little more than he did in his speech, that the divisions were deep. Among the 11, there were some very reluctant voters. If some of us had not been more concerned about the damage that might be done to the fabric of the Church of England, the Chamber might have been much fuller and the measure could well have been defeated.
It will not be defeated. There will not be a Division. It will go on the statute book. There are fail-safe mechanisms within the measure to which my hon. Friend has referred. We must hope that what is being said here tonight, and what was said on 1:he ecclesiastical committee, will ensure that our fears ate not realised and that what we are concerned about will not come to pass.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend more than once made the point that this measure is, so to speak, pushing it. If it is not noted, there will be trouble. That should be clearly understood.

Mr. Cormack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
I merely reiterate what I said a moment ago. Warnings have been given and people have been troubled. The procedure by which measures from the synod are considered by the almost unique animal, the ecclesiastical committee, are not as a satisfactory as they might be. We may have to look at their whole operation again if we are to maintain our proper responsibility in the House for affairs within the established Church.
Let what has been said here and earlier be heeded. As I say, I thank my hon. Friend for the candour and clarity with which he presented the measure. I hope that there will be no need to repeat this exercise in the future.

Mr. Frank Field: The speech of my "hon. Friend", the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) is a difficult one to follow. I shall begin, as he did, by paying a compliment to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) for the way in which he introduced the measure. It was up to his usual standards. Indeed, I pay him the compliment of imitating the structure of his speech.
I should like to say something about one of the measures which were contentious in the ecclesiastical committee. I should also like to comment on—to use his grand phrase—the relationship between Church and State. There are important lessons which none of us present tonight, and few of those who are absent, would want to be lost.
In referring to the specific measure relating to the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure, I think it is correct to say that, while our attention was concentrated on two issues, most of our concern was directed to a discussion about the fate of churches. It is proper for us to consider for a moment, as did the hon. Gentleman in his introductory remarks, the position that the Church of England is in. On this issue it is sometimes torn in two opposite directions. We have been reminded correctly tonight that because it is the established Church, the Church of England is the trustee—and the largest trustee—of our architectural treasures. It has duties and responsibilities in that regard.
However, the Church is also a living body, the primary job of which is to propagate the gospel. In some instances those two pressures do pull in different ways. I do not wish to appear in the caricature that was painted of those people who believe that the Church is composed only of destructive forces.
I am therefore genuinely pleased to put on record the pleasure we have as Members in witnessing the work of headquarters staff of the Commissioners and the work done in the dioceses by people who are concerned to meet those two requirements of protecting our heritage and our day-to-day and immediate responsibility of spreading the gospel. It is also a suitable opportunity to put on record our thanks to the advisory board and to the Redundant Churches Fund for the work they do.
The hon. Member for Wokingham was careful to stress the good work that has been done, yet he polarised the debate started by those who try to paint the picture that all is bad in the care of our treasures. Yet it would be equally mistaken to try to present the Church as having an unblemished record in this respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West—I shall continue to call him that this evening—has given some examples. We all have examples from our own constituencies where we believe the Church has not behaved in a proper manner given the responsibilities it has had. I expect that we have all received letters from other hon. Members' constituents as a result of deliberations in the ecclesiastical committee. There is also the work done by pressure groups such as SAVE which have looked critically at the Church's record in protecting our architectural heritage.
A report was published recently about how the Church had fulfilled its responsibilities in the North-West, part of which I have the privilege to represent. The report makes sad reading. It is against that background of wanting to thank people for a job well done and being mindful of the imperfections of the way the present system works that we must look critically at the powers that synod seeks, and particularly the amendments it is making to what is generally called section 46.
If we examine this measure and the examples provided to us by Church House of why this reform should go through, and then we examine the counter paper by the advisory board, we must say, to use a current phrase, that the advisory board fired deadly Exocets at the reasons provided by Church House for having this amendment. In paragraph 4(d) of its report the advisory board makes out a powerful case for retaining the status quo. I shall read that paragraph to remind the House of the advisory board's record, a record which will be diminished as a result of the change in its powers:
More relevant to the issue is the fact that the Advisory Board's refusal of Certificates, in the face of strong pressure, resulted in saving Holy Trinity, Tunbridge Wells, … later upgraded and converted for use as a theatre; St. Stephen, Rosslyn Hill … which is now under consideration for vesting in the Redundant Churches Fund; Holy Trinity, Sloane Street … which is now being retained in parochial use; St. Hilda, Cross Green, … which is again in active parochial use; Christ Church, St. Albans, … now converted to use as a recording studio; St. Gregory the Great, Canterbury,…now converted for educational purposes.
The board concluded by saying that it could give other examples.
The advisory board went on to make an even more powerful case why the board should remain independent and have the power of veto:
Again cases which have arisen during 1980–81 … have convinced the Board that it would be unwise to leave decisions in the hands of the Church Commissioners, if only because it would be extremely difficult for a pastorally oriented body like the Commissioners to resist the diocesan pressures that would be brought to bear on them to reject the Board's advice and to ignore restrictions which the Board might, on valid historic or architectural grounds, strongly recommend".
It then refers to its recent deliberations on one church, when it considered the matter three times. Some hon. Members have an interest in that case, as it is a church which we use during the week. As a result of the advisory board having this power of veto, and its willingness to hold up a scheme, we now have a much better scheme for St. Matthew, Westminster than we would originally have had. I say that, being a friend of the vicar there, and knowing the extra burden that it placed on him, waiting, lobbying and trying to persuade people to support the rebuilding of his church. It has been an enormous personal cost to him and many of the parishioners. The end result, in my view, will be very good.
One of the questions that I want to put to the hon. Member for Wokingham is: what will happen to this debate and the many hours which we spend in the ecclesiatical committee? How will the synod receive our comments? What is the mechanism by which it considers what the ecclesiastical committee says and what we say on the Floor of the House? I ask that because serious reservations have been expressed this evening about this measure. When we have considered the measure in committee, or when we have questioned the hon. Gentleman about how the 1968 measure has worked, we have received replies which have not made happy reading.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of two of the replies that he gave me. I asked him how the safeguards to the 1968 measure worked in respect of every diocese having a depository for the furnishings of redundant churches. The reply showed that not every diocese is yet carrying out what we were led to believe would happen to church treasures.
The second point concerned a simple matter of making an inventory of all the lists of a church before anything happened to them. It involved a church which is being considered for redundancy. One of the central churches in Birkenhead suffered in this way, and the hon. Member had to tell me that no inventory had been made. The phrase the "four-wheel Christians", which has just been used, is a new phrase to me, yet when I was questioned in my local Labour party about my activities on the ecclesiastical committee, I was not sure what reception I would get from the party activists about the amount of time that I had spent on this topic. I was genuinely surprised and pleased, when I talked about the two churches that we lost in Birkenhead, and which are now just a couple of old bomb sites, when people said, "That is the church from which we buried my mum. That was the church that I was christened in. That was the church that I went to Sunday school in. I could not understand why they closed it. Quite a few of us used to go."
There was a real commitment to two fine buildings in Birkenhead that were lost. And this does not take note of a church in Rock Ferry, the furnishings of which now largely occupy a pub in Greasby. We have heard of a new safeguard tonight if the advisory board loses this check. We heard about safeguards before when we discussed the original measure. They are not yet working. We agree to this measure reluctantly. I want a proper dialogue between us and synod and I ask, what will happen to our comments? I hope that they will be examined carefully. After examining our comments, perhaps synod will consider that this part of the measure should not be enacted.
There are three general lessons to learn from our long and important debates on this amendment measure. I underline the disquiet that has been expressed about two aspects of the opposed measure. I cannot underline enough the fact that agreement was given by 11 votes to 10 to the proposal which is opposed by the advisory board. I go further than the gentleness that marked the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West. The majority of 11 was made up of people who voted for the measure because of their responsibilities here or in synod or because they were non-conformists and believed, as a matter of principle, that the House, or the ecclesiastical committee, should not interfere with Church business. Without that support, this aspect of the measure would not have been passed. That is am important message to take back.
When we debated these issues at length, the hon. Member for Wokingham sometimes had justice on his side when his patience appeared to be a little strained. I should like him to be clear why we took so long. It was a chance to make our views known. We were unaware of the proper machinery to make our views known effectively to synod. Many of us have reservations about some of the actions that synod has been taking. They are not all actions that we have debated in the ecclesiastical committee, so we took what opportunity we could to register our disquiet.
Our present procedures for accepting or rejecting are unsatisfactory. None of us wants to vote down measures so that some in synod can call for disestablishment. It is ironic that when vie first considered the pension measure, it was so badly drafted that an informal meeting took place and the measure was taken back. That was a good action for us to take. That principle of give and take, where the House has something to add to our deliberations, could be extended into areas other than simply drafting defects.
As a practising Anglican as well as a Member of Parliament, I believe that we have not yet reached a satisfactory state of affairs in which our views can be registered with synod. That is not to say that it will necessarily take notice of or bow to what we say. but we would like to know that our deliberations are received by synod.
The third message underlying much of the debate has been the concern of some of us that some members of synod want all the privileges of establishment and none of the disadvantages I think that it was 50 years ago that William Temple said in the Life and Liberty movement that to disestablish the Church, would be good for the Church and bad for the State. I believe now that disestablishment would be bad not only for the State but also for the Church. For all sorts of reasons that we cannot deal with now, I believe that the Church looks in upon itself far too much. If I may say so, it shows some of t he faults of local Labour parties in which the activists, full of zeal, have no wish to take into account the views of other people, even when they are committed people on the same side.
We do not wish to go down the path of disestablishment, but there are rights and duties for the established Church. The present set-up in which some members of synod want all the privileges but have no wish to accept any of the reservations cannot and will not continue. My fear is not that this may be seen as a first move towards disestablishment, but that the temper of this place is now such that the Church may stumble into disestablishment without realising what it is doing.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I wish to follow some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). First, I declare my own hand. For me, the Church is about people and about teaching God's message, not about plant and bureaucracy and similar matters in which I have very little interest. I love beautiful buildings, I was a cathedral chorister, and I will never forget the joys of singing in great choirs and fine services. All that is part of it, of course. Nevertheless, if all that and the buildings had to go, it would not matter particularly to me, provided that the job that Christ came on Earth to do continued—because that is what it is about. People are concerned about establishment. Although there is great value in it and a great deal to be said for it—indeed, I am more than marginally in favour of it—in the end I would not care if it went because it is not the vital thing. Other things are more important.
At this point, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) who, with his customary care and accuracy, opened the debate.
The public relations aspect of church closures is almost always deplorable. Although that is a big generalisation, I think that it is fair. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, people's roots are deep in the buildings or churches


where they are baptised or married. One need not think long about the involvement of an individual with the place where he parts with the mortal remains of his loved ones. Synod and those associated with it far too often forget that, although for fair reasons, that is the very matter that the Church and its associates should remember.
When there is a proposal for closure, every care must be seen to be taken and arguments must be carefully mounted. I know that both old and young people are appallingly difficult, obnoxious and ghastly in their opposition to closures, but the Church must bear that. Public relations must cover that aspect and remind Christians and their families that their relationship with the Church is not about plant.
I take up with great interest the remarks of the hon. Member for Birkenhead about St. Matthew, Westminster. I lived next door to it for some time and it was a place where the greatest in the land worshipped with the humblest. It was the home of Bishop Frank Weston, Archbishop Trevor Huddleston and Archbishop Michael Ramsay.
The redundancy of Christ Church, Spitalfields, was handled well. I was a prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate in that area for some time and I saw the marvellous work done for alcoholics in the basement of the church while people were worshipping upstairs. I cannot think of a more godly use for the building. That beautiful and magnificent piece of history is still there as a great concert hall. It is an inspiration to anyone.
St. John's, Smith Square, has been beautifully restored for concerts and spiritual music. One's great delight is choral music. The work of people such as Lady Parker, the late wife of the late Lord Chief Justice, restored that church well, within measures available long before the measures before the House this evening were contemplated.
Sensitivity is required when we deal with church buildings. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham described the position under the new measure where a building is to be closed and an alternative built. That brings to mind all the questions about team ministry and so on. I am worried about the establishment of team ministries as an alternative to individual churches with individual incumbents because spiritual growth is required in all worshipping communities. That will come only through steady, thoughtful, deep and progressive teaching. We may get a good deal more team ministry as a result of this measure, and I am not sure that that is necessarily conducive to deep teaching.
I was in Wales on a Sunday recently and I went to a local church in a small village. It was a nice service, though not well attended. I asked the vicar how many churches he had to look after. he told me that he looked after six churches and that he did not consider that many in these days. I told him that I felt that his task must be difficult and he replied "It is a great deal easier than having a single church and seeing the same people Sunday after Sunday, trying to make an impact on them and take them +through progressive teaching. It is much easier to see different people all the time".
I was concerned about those remarks because they implied a shallowness of instruction. If there is any suggestion that the redrawing of parish boundaries will

produce more team ministries, I should want to enter a caveat of concern. If teaching is not deep, progressive and real, a community's roots in the faith will become more and more shallow. Those of us who are practising Anglicans do not want that to happen. We should not stand by and watch the Church die. That would be a gross failure of our duty.
I am looking forward to my hon. Friend's reply to my intervention on the question of the envisaged restriction of the right of appeal. The difference between an unfettered right of appeal and the right of appeal by leave is important. I hope that my hon. Friend will reassure me on that point. Public relations on sensitive matters that are deep in the heart and consciousness of individuals and communities are important.

Sir William van Straubenzee: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply briefly to some of the questions that have been asked during the debate. I begin by thanking hon. Members on both sides of the House for the tenor of their remarks, for which I am grateful. I thank them also for the kind things that have been said about myself which are less deserved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) expressed concern about the reduction in the power of appeal and asked how many appeals were lodged each year. I am advised that three of four appeals are heard each year. I stress "heard" because a number of appeals may be withdrawn before the hearings take place. We can be informed about those appeals only in general terms. Of course, if there were only one appeal every three years, it would still be important. I am certain that my hon. Friend and I are in agreement about that. It is the principle that is important and not the numbers.
It can be said, as was reported to the ecclesiastical committee, that the initiative for these proposals came more from the legal than from the ecclesiastical authorities, which were concerned about the welfare, expense and trouble of would-be appellants, having by way of judgment laid down the pretty narrow terms upon which they were prepared to entertain an appeal. This is not a plot by the Church to reduce the number of appeals.
Unfortunately, I gave the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) an incomplete answer when he intervened during my opening speech. I apologise to him. I overlooked something and I must put the record right. I said to him, perfectly correctly, that what I loosely call the Secretary of State's appeal procedure is related to listed buildings. I should have added that it refers also to buildings in a conservation area whether listed or not. That is quite an important extension. I forgot that when I answered that question quickly on the Floor of the House.
The House will forgive me if I do not explore the fundamental question whether the House should have power to amend measures. That goes to the root of the settlement between Church and State, which was arrived at in 1919. I suspect that I would incur the wrath of the Chair if I cantered down that road too far. I must content myself with the law as it is. It may be that Parliament may wish to reopen that matter with the Church. If it does, so be it.
I have listened with care and attention to the matters that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House relating to the necessity for the General Synod to listen and to be receptive. The hon. Member for


Birkenhead asked by what mechanisms does the synod get to know. It gets to know by a number of mechanisms including—I am not being flippant—Hansard and other House journals.
I have always seen it—no doubt this has been the view of my predecessors—as one of my tasks to seek to interpret within the appropriate committee of the General Synod. Over recent weeks I have sought, perhaps inadequately, to do so. My experience is that individual members of the synod are receptive to and understanding of public expressions of views on their work as expressed by hon. Members.
It is true that since I first entered the synod, or, as it then was, the Church Assembly, there have been few members of this place who have been members of the General Synod. The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) happily has been co-opted, to the great advantage of the General Synod. My hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) is an elected member. I am both an elected and an ex-officio member. We are the only three Members of Parliament who are members of the General Synod. In some ways I regret this. If there should be times—and this has been touched on by all three hon. Members who have addressed the House from the Back Benches—when hon. Members are concerned about the operation of a pastoral measure or provisions for redundancy, I most earnestly hope that they will make their views known to me if I can be of any help as a channel. I suppose in one sense that is my role, and I will take it on most willingly.
It is very important indeed that these things shall be done with as much sensitivity as possible. I have to say that the Church of England is not a centralist organisation. It is not one run with a highly disciplined force from the centre. I have to accept quite freely that from time to time there are imperfections in its operations. I could not possibly say otherwise. I would like to say, however, having given the House the figures for the number of schemes that there have been, that this is perhaps not an example with which we are familiar in Parliamentary life where we rightly hear of the cases which have gone wrong, and we do not hear anything of the cases which have gone right: where there has been intense sensitivity, where there

has been the most careful sounding of opinion, where the Archdeacon and his people have with infinite pastoral care and sensitivity felt their way forward and brought their people along with them.
In fairness, one might be allowed to say that, but I would never want to excuse insensitivity. I would be deeply concerned, and I have been, when toes have been trodden on and feelings hurt, a deeply-felt love of Church over-riding in an apparently brutal way by someone. This cannot be excused for one moment. I am not seeking to do so. I am asking for help in getting to know of them, and to be aware of them when the time comes.
Finally, reference has been made to forthcoming consultation. I say no more about it, because it is of a non-statutory kind, as some of us know. Within the limitations of the present law, I think that might be a very useful occasion. I detect no disposition whatever on the part of the General Synod to be other than receptive to the views of this House as expressed by its Members, and to take them appropriately and carefully into account.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead takes the view—and he is fully entitled to—that the comments of the Advisory Board on this matter of schedule 1 were more powerful than those put forward by the General Synod. I respectfully disagree. These are matters of judgment. I still believe that what I ventured to say earlier about the very powerful provisions for the Secretary of State's non-statutory inquiries are going to turn out to be extremely important. I know he used the expressive phrase that they would use an Exocet. I would not wish, I confess, to describe Miss Margot Eates as an Exocet, certainly not to her face, but I take the point about the very powerful nature.
I hope that the balance may be right. All sides are seeking to get it right. It is in that spirit that I commend the measure to you.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

British Railways (North-West Kent)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Bob Dunn: I am grateful to the House, and to you Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise a matter of great constituency interest and concern. I am grateful, too, for the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), who is here in his capacity as Under-Secretary of State for Transport. I hope that he will reply favourably to the points I shall make. I am also grateful for the presence of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), who, I hope, will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because he wishes to speak in support of what I have to say.
I wish to refer to the effects of the cancellation by British Rail in June 1981 of the 59 minutes past midnight service which went from Charing Cross to Gillingham via London Bridge, passing through and stopping at Dartford. The consequences of the decision to cancel this service were both significant and immediate for many of my constituents. It had severe ramifications for job opportunities in certain disciplines in London. It caused many people to give up jobs which they had held successfully and happily for years. They could not get back to their homes because their shift or night work finished after the new departure time of the last train.
Along with other hon. Members from South London and Kent I have attempted to persuade British Rail to reinstate the 59 minutes past midnight service because its removal has acted as a deterrent to those who work in the police and for the civil authorities in transport undertakings and in cinemas, theatres and restaurants. Indeed, many of the servants of the House find it difficult to get home when we sit late. Those who by the nature of their jobs work long hours have told me bitterly of their difficulties.
More important, the inability to secure transport home acts as a deterrent to those who find themselves on the labour market and who otherwise might be prepared to work in one or other of the occupations I have listed. Cases of real hardship brought about by the elimination of that train service have been put to me. I have been told of transport workers who sleep in their offices or require their friends to put them up during the week, of persons who have become unemployed and of Dartfordians who are reluctant to enter the West End in the evening because they fear that they will not be able to get home.
The decision to eliminate the late service was wrong. The social consequences have been enormous. The financial consequences in terms of the cost of benefit to those who become unemployed outweigh strongly the £55 per day that British Rail claims that it costs to run the service.
Constituents who used the service confirmed that it was well used on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, fully used on Friday and packed out on Saturday and Sunday. After some time British Rail agreed to a slight change which took effect on 17 May, namely, to retime the 1 minute past midnight last train to depart at 10 minutes past midnight on a daily basis. While I welcome that change, it means that there is still a difference of 49 minutes between the last departure in the old timetable and in the new one.
British Rail informed me on 4 May 1982 that it would cost £20,000 a year to maintain the last train as I wish it to be. The evidence that I have received shows that, because the service was so well used, there must be other considerations that motivated British Rail to terminate the service.
The angle that worries me most about the decision to cancel is its effect on the willingness of my constituents to go to London to find jobs. British Rail's attitude is unhelpful and deplorable. I raise the matter in debate hoping that my hon. Friend will request British Rail to consider the urgent reinstatement of the 59 minutes past midnight service—a service that is valued by me and my constituents.
I place on record my thanks to my constituent, Mr. Beechils, of Dartford, who first raised the matter with me last November, to Mr. Bob Newlyn, the manager of the south-east division of British Rail, and to the people of Dartford who in their generous and concerned way have petitioned me to bring the matter to the attention of the House—which I have great pleasure in doing tonight.

Mr. John Cartwright: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Do I understand that the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) has the agreement of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) to intervene?

Mr. Dunn: indicated assent.

Mr. John Cartwright: I have been involved in this campaign to reinstate the 00–59 service to Dartford for about six months and I pay tribute to the determination and perseverance of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who has conducted the campaign over the whole of that period. I also congratulate him on achieving this Adjournment Debate and thank him for his courtesy in giving me the opportunity to support his representations.
I became involved because many of my constituents living at Thamesmead and Abbey Wood are in the same situation as the hon. Gentleman's constituents in Dartford. My representations are also supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), who would have been here but as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he made a small intervention in the Greater London Council (Money) Bill earlier this evening.
The position at Thamesmead is a matter of anxiety because it is a new town development. Large numbers of people have been brought out of central London and rehoused at Thamesmead. Many are workers who have to return to central London where they work and some are shift workers in the entertainment industry and essential public services, having to carry out their duties late at night and early in the morning. They depend heavily on the 00–59 train service to Dartford to get home.
As the hon. Member for Dartford said, one might have understood British Rail's attitude if it could claim that the service was poorly used and that there was no justification for continuing it. However, that is not the case. We have provided British Rail with the names of over 50 people who were regular travellers on that train, and would be regular travellers if it is reinstated.
One of the many letters that I received from the general manager of British Rail (Southern) accepts that it was a popular service. In a letter dated 18 March he said that


it is accepted that the aforementioned train particularly at weekends was popular".
However, the letter continues to the effect that
a majority of the passengers were travelling for entertainment purposes and therefore are in a position to re-schedule their arrangements in order to catch the present 23.59 service.
I do not accept that, and British Rail has amended its view. Even if it were right, it betrays a strange view of British Rail's responsibilities. It seems to suggest that travellers should fit in with the needs of the service, whereas I was brought up to believe that the service exists to meet the needs of the travelling public.
British Rail has moved to some extent. As the hon. Member for Dartford told the House, it has delayed the 23.59 service to 10 minutes past midnight specifically to meet the needs of people spending some time in central London for entertainment purposes. That is a small step in the right direction, but it does not meet the needs of shift workers. It would not have met the needs of hon. Members if we had been trying to get home by public transport after tonight's debate.
The final suggestion that I have had from British Rail is puzzling, because it has said that it will re-schedule the 00.54 service by delaying it to two minutes past 1 am. The only trouble is that that service goes to Orpington, and I have not yet discovered how people wanting to go to Thamesmead, Abbey Wood or Dartford will in any way be helped by a late train going to Orpington.
I am sure that Orpington is a very nice place to visit in the early hours of the morning, but even the rolling drunkard will not go to Thamesmead, Abbey Wood or Dartford via Orpington at that time in the morning. I am slightly puzzled why Orpington should be specially favoured with this sort of service when Dartford is not.
The hon. Member for Dartford reported British Rail's view about the cost of reinstating this late-night service. I agree that £20,000 is a lot of money. We all understand the problems with which British Rail is faced. One of the most sensible suggestions from our constituents is that British Rail should thin out its late-night service to Dartford to an hourly basis, should delay the 11.27 service to 11.59 and the existing 11.59 to 00.59, so that shift workers who were clearly dependent on that late-night train would still have an opportunity of getting home.
On all the evidence, there is clearly an established need for such a service, and I very much hope that the Minister will use his influence to try to persuade British Rail, despite its difficulties, to meet a proven need for this late-night service.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I am sure that the people of north-west Kent who use British Rail's services from London to Dartford and north-west Kent will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) for his diligent concern in their interest and for raising this matter. I can understand the anxiety that he and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) have expressed about the difficulties experienced by some of their constituents as a result of changes to the late-night rail services from London.
But at the outset I should make it clear that the timetabling of rail services is entirely the responsibility of the British Railways board and—I hope both hon. Members understand this—Ministers have no powers to

intervene. However, I have been in touch with the board about this matter. It has explained the background to its decision that the last train of the day to Dartford and Gillingham should leave Charing Cross not later than 12.10.
Hon. Members, are probably familiar with this background, but 1 think that it would be useful to remember that the board originally decided to discontinue the 12.59 train from Charing Cross as part of a package of service reductions that it introduced in 1981. This package of service reductions was one of the actions the board took in response to one of the main recommendations in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's inquiry on the London commuter services. It recommended that the board should take action to adjust services to demand in order to save costs.
The then Secretary of State accepted that some service cuts were necessary, but he made his view clear that in searching for cost reductions the board should look for the changes that were least harmful to the interests of its customers.
None the less, there were complaints about the cuts that the board introduced, especially about the earlier times of last trains from the main London terminals. People working late and theatregoers were not happy with these. I understand from the board that it took heed of these complaints and reinstated some of the late-night services. I believe it was as part of this process that as from last month it arranged for the last train from Charing Cross to Dartford to depart at the later time of 12.10 rather than 11.59. But I understand that the board considers—both hon. Members referred to this—that the additional cost of about £20,000 per year to reinstate the 12.59 train would not be justified, given its financial constraints.
Those constraints stem from the total amount of revenue that the board receives in the form of fares receipts and subsidy set against the cost of running the railway. Clearly it is for the board to do its utmost to increase the level of receipts by vigorous marketing of its services, and to cut costs by improving efficiency and productivity. We fully support the board in the great efforts that it is making to improve productivity.
As to the level of subsidy, that is a matter for the Government, since they decide the financial framework within which the board must operate. The subsidy is not given for individual services but is in the form of the public service obligation grant paid to the board for the passenger railway.
It is important to appreciate the amount of the grant and the extent to which we have increased it. Last year. at a time of great pressure on public expenditure, the ceiling on the level of the public service obligation grant was increased by £110 million in recognition of the exceptionally difficult trading conditions facing the board that year.
That brought the grant paid by central Government to £749 million—more than £2 million a day. The ceiling for 1982 has been set at £804 million—a slight reduction in real terms on the exceptional 1981 level but still some £100 million higher, again in real terms, than the grant for 1980.
It is clear from those figures that our support for the railways is strong. We have shown flexibility towards its financial difficulties. We shall continue our support in order to offer the railways the real prospect of a healthy future.
However, that future must also depend on the willingness of railwaymen to play their part. The Government cannot simply give an open-ended commitment to providing any level of support that might be required. We must take account of the interests of to taxpayer. Although we accept that socially necessary rail passenger services need subsidy, we are concerned that taxpayers should not suffer as a result of having to support them.
It is against that background that jointly with the board we have launched an urgent review of rail finances. The review is being undertaken by a small, independent committee chaired by Sir David Serpell.
In its report, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission said that the quality of service could be improved without an increase in costs. That is a highly relevant observation to the points raised in the debate and I know that the board is fully aware of it. However, achieving improvements without increasing costs depends on both sides of the railway industry working together. It is not in the hands of the Government alone to create the future for the railways. That is something that both sides of the railway industry have to achieve together.
The British Railways Board's struggle for better productivity through more modern and efficient working practices is central to the future of the railways and must be fully supported by all those with the best interests of the railway industry at heart. The problems facing the board in pursuing its aims are for it to resolve with the work force. I am sure that with a reasonable measure of good will those problems could be solved without an unnecessary and damaging strike.
It is often argued that increasing investment would solve all the problems facing the railways. However, it certainly makes no sense for anyone to press for substantial increases in investment if the equipment is not to be used efficiently, or even stands idle in sidings.
I emphasise that the London commuter network already receives nearly a quarter of all British Rail's investment. That enables the board to undertake a substantial programme of modernisation. Major investment schemes include, first, the London Bridge resignalling which was completed in November 1976 at a cost of about £45 million. That scheme has been of direct benefit to the services to Dartford and north-west Kent.
Secondly, the electrification of Great Northern suburban services was opened in March 1978 at a cost of about £90 million.
Thirdly, the electrification of the Bedford-St. Pancras services was completed in 1982 at a cost of about £150 million. Thirty brand new one-man electric trains have been built and are ready for use, but they stand idle in sidings because of a dispute over manning arrangements.
Fourthly, the Victoria resignalling and track modernisation scheme is to be completed in 1984 at a cost about £50 million.
Fifthly, the resignalling and track modernisation of the London—Brighton line is to be completed in 1987 at a cost of about £50 million.
Sixthly, a rolling programme for the construction of some 200 electric multiple units per year, costing about £40 million a year, most of which are for London's commuter network.
Seventhly, the board has a programme for refurbishing the existing EMU fleet by the mid-1990s.
The scale of this investment in the commuter network is not immediately apparent to everyone because the investment tends to be in big lumps, with individual lines rather than the whole system receiving the benefits. But in practice the investment in track and signalling leads to significant improvements in reliability and punctuality. I understand, for example, that the board estimates that the completion of the London Bridge resignalling scheme resulted in a 10 per cent. improvement in the punctuality of the services that it covers.
But investment has to be paid for. It should be recognised that greatly increasing the level of investment in the London commuter network would mean either higher fares or an increased requirement for Government support, which would mean a greater burden on the taxpayer. Taxpayers already give nearly £1 billion a year to the railways as a whole. The Government have kept their side of the bargain through investment in rolling stock, track and signalling. But all that has not been matched by the work force adopting modern working practices.
On the contrary, as I have said, we see costly new trains, designed for one-man operation lying unused because of the unions' insistence that they have a two-man crew. We see rigid adherence to working methods that were agreed in 1919. Instead of such wasteful confrontations, the efforts of the British Railways Board and the help of the Government need to be combined with the active support of the work force in achieving better productivity. This is the only way the future of the industry can be assured.
In replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford and to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Bottomley) my intention has been to set out the broad context within which the board makes its decisions on the planning of passenger services. As I have made clear, the Government provide the board with very substantial support for the operation of those services. This support has been substantially increased since 1980. The services are benefiting from substantial investment.
Improvement of the services now depends on the two sides of the railways industry working together to generate the necessary resources by improving productivity. If this could be achieved, the board would be better placed to take positive action on the many important points that have been raised by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East in the debate. I hope, therefore, that that co-operation will be forthcoming in the interests of the commuter passengers about whom my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman have spoken to such effect.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.